ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. ASHRAM MADHYAMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of the W.A. 455/06 also as common question is involved in these two appeals.

(2.) This appeal under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Nyayalaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, is directed against the order dated September 5, 2006 passed in W.P. 2564/2005 by the learned single Judge whereby learned single Judge has reduced the damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to 25% on deposit of dues of provident fund by the employer (petitioner before the single Judge). The original petitioner was granted coverage under the Act for payment of Employees Provident Fund as per the provisions of Act. It was not disputed that pursuant to the letter dated January 27, 2000 (Annexure P.1) the petitioner was asked to deposit the contribution for the period July 10, 1983 to September 22, 1997 on or before April 15, 2000 whereas it was actually deposited on June 30, 2000 that too a small sum of Rs. 13,303/-. Further a sum of Rs. 43,362/- was deposited on July 17, 2000. Learned Assistant Commissioner, finding that admittedly there was delay in depositing the provident fund, invoked the provisions of Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act) and imposed the damages in the sum of Rs. 37,590/-. This amount was reduced by the learned single Judge to 25% of the damages and the interest charged under Section 17-Q of the Act was maintained. In doing so learned single Judge fortified his order by the decision in the RPF Commissioner v. SD College AIR 1997 SC 3645 : (1997) 1 SCC 241 : 1997-II-LLJ-55 and Halwasis Vidya Vihar Haryana v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner AIR 2006 SC 1767 : (2006) 4 SCC 46 : 2006-II-LLJ-497 The contention of the learned counsel, however, is that once there was violation/delay in deposit of employees provident fund, there is no choice but to impose damages to the maximum extent under said provision. Section 14-B of the Act reads as under:

(3.) From perusal of provisions as extracted herein above, though it is clear that the department has power to impose damages in case of non-deposit/delayed deposit of the provident fund, it is only discretionary to impose damages as is clear from the word "may" used in the provision. We are, therefore, not impressed by the submission that full damages are compulsory under Section 14-B of the Act. Learned Judge has maintained the damages to the extent of 25% of the original demand and has maintained the interest charged under Section 17-Q. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned single Judge in his discretion, has rightly acted within the parameters of the provisions. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.