LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-182

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, LADY DOAK COLLEGE ROAD CHOKKIKULAM, MADURAI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCOPE MINAR, CORE II 4TH FLOOR, DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI

Decided On February 21, 2017
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Office Of The Employees Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road Chokkikulam, Madurai Appellant
V/S
The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Scope Minar, Core Ii 4Th Floor, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order in ATA No. 92(13) 2010 dated 24.08.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The 2nd respondent is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the alleged reason of belated payment of Provident Fund contribution by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner initiated proceedings against the 2nd respondent and by his proceedings, the petitioner, by order dated 06.01.2010, directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 4,64,139.00 as penal damages with 12% interest to be paid by the 2nd respondent within 15 days. According to the petitioner, since the 2nd respondent has not made the employer contribution and also family pension and family fund contribution as well as deposit linked insurance contribution, etc, as per the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the penal damages with mandatory 12% interest. Therefore, the same had been calculated and by the said order dated 06.01.2010, the 2nd respondent was directed by the petitioner to pay the amount within 15 days, otherwise, action would be initiated against the 2nd respondent under Sec. 7Q of the Act.

(3.) As against the said order passed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent filed Appeal No. ATA 92(13) 2010. The first respondent appellate authority, after having considered the rival claim made by the 2nd respondent as well as the petitioner, has passed the final order in the appeal on 24.08.2011, whereby the first respondent has passed the following order: