REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Ï¿½ II EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. SHIRINE VELANKANNI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.2.2007 in W.P.No.9637 of 2004 whereby the proceedings issued by the first appellant dated 10.4.2002 directing payment of damages under Section 14 - B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was set aside with a direction to refix the amount after granting reduction, but without interest under Section 7-Q of the Act. Factual Background:-

(2.) THE respondent is an educational institution and their institution is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "E.P.F Act.") THE respondent appears to have collected the employees share but failed to pay the contribution to the fund as well as the scheme within the time permitted, which made the first appellant (hereafter referred as "the Authorised Officer") to pass an order under Section 14-B of the E.P.F. Act calling upon the respondent to pay damages as well as to pay interest on such damages. THE said order dated 10.4.2002 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. It was the contention of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that there was no basis for levy of damages to the maximum extent as indicated in the statute and recovery at the appropriate rates as indicated in Para 32 of the Scheme would meet the ends of justice and as such the Authorised Officer was not justified in assessing penal damages at the rate at which it was assessed. THE respondent also disputed the levy of interest on the amount assessed under Section 14-B, as according to them the amount referred to under Section 7-Q refers only to the amount payable by way of contribution and does not refer to damages and as such there was no justification in claiming interest on damages. Accordingly they have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.4.2002 as well as the consequential recovery notice dated 9.6.2003.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that though the Authorised Officer was empowered to levy damages at 100%, it had levied only at 37% and as such the learned Single Judge was not correct in interfering with the order passed by the Authorised Officer. THE learned counsel also contended that the wording of Section 7-Q is so wide, but clear that it would include damages also for the purpose of computing the amount in respect of which, interest is chargeable and as such the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order directing payment of interest under Section 7-Q of the E.P.F.Act.