ONTRACK SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 14/9/2021 in W.P.A. No.13339 of 2019. The appellant challenged an order passed by the respondent authorities under Sec. 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act"). The orders were passed in the year 2014 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2019.

(2.) The undisputed fact is that there was delay in remittance of the employees' as well as employer's contribution to the respondent organisation. Consequently, the levy of interest was automatic and it appears that the appellant has not contested the levy of interest and the same has been recovered in full and the contribution, that is, both the employees' and employer's contribution has been remitted belatedly. What remains is the damages, which is payable under Sec. 14B of the Act, which has been quantified as more than Rs.44.00 lakhs.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that out of the said amount, Rs.4.00 lakhs has been recovered by way of bank attachment. It is submitted that in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Bench has made an observation that the appellant with a view to deliberately avoid the mandate under Sec. 7O of the Act has not preferred a statutory appeal since a pre-deposit of 75% of the amount in dispute is a pre- condition. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in terms of the provisions of Sec. 7I read with Sec. 7O, such mandatory pre-deposit is not required when an appeal is preferred as against an order passed under Sec. 14B of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the finding rendered by the learned writ Court is incorrect. The learned senior counsel submits that he is very well aware of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202 wherein it has been held that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities. However, it is submitted that the authority, which passed the order has not discussed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the order is a non-speaking order.