BHATKULITALUKA CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SALE AND PURCHASE SOCIETY LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-employer has by this writ petition questioned the order dated 29-11-1996 passed by the respondent-Regional provident Fund Commissioner, imposing damages to the tune of rs. 86,860/- on the petitioner Society under section 14-B of the Employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Provident Fund Act" for short). This Court has while issuing Rule, granted interim stay on petitioners depositing Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and giving security for balance amount. The said interim order is operating even today.

(2.) In view of the arguments advanced, it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail.

(3.) Advocate A. M. Gordey, appearing for petitioner has basically questioned the order on the ground that it is non-speaking and also mechanical. He has contended that in the notice issued on 21-5-1996 before initiation of action, period specified was from June, 1983 to May, 1992, while in the impugned order the damages are levied for the period from June, 1983 to february, 1995. He further states that the damages could not have been levied in view of paragraph No. 29 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme read with paragraph Nos. 30 and 38. He invites attention to the Schedule produced along with the petition to show that the actual date on which the salary was paid to its employees by the petitioner and also the date of payment of contribution to respondent. According to him the payment has been made within reasonable time and also within the required time, after the salary was actually disbursed and hence there was no scope for levying any damage. He has further contended that when this position along with the financial condition of the petitioner society, due to which it could not release salary of other employee within time was placed for consideration of respondent by filing reply to the notice, the said situation is not considered by the Authority at all. He invites attention to the impugned order to state that the damages at the maximum possible rate has been levied without indicating any reason as to why the highest payable rate of damages is being applied even to petitioner. He argues that there is no finding recorded that the late deposit of Provident Fund dues by petitioner was intentional and petitioner was also not given any opportunity in relation to the rate of damages applied. He argues that the penalty rate prescribed in paragraph No. 32-A, are not mandatory and respondent has got discretion in the matter. He further states that the dates from which the damages have been charged or calculation of those damages, are not made available to the petitioner and according to him those calculations must form part of the impugned order, because the errors in calculation are justiciable before this Court. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is non-speaking order. He has relied upon various judgments in support of his contention to which I will be making reference little later.