BESCO LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing wagons and has two separate divisions, namely, Foundry Division and Wagon Division. The Petitioner No.1 is covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and the aforesaid two divisions of the Petitioner No.1 have been allotted two separate code numbers by the Provident Fund Authorities.

(2.) On the basis of the proceedings initiated under Sec. 7-Q and 14-B of the said Act, the Respondents by an Order, dtd. 19/1/2022 had determined a sum of Rs.14,70,634.00 and Rs.30,26,547.00 towards interests and damages payable by the Petitioner No.1 under Sec. 7-Q & 14-B of the said Act respectively, for the period from January 2017 to May 2021 aggregating to a sum of Rs.44,97,181..00 The Petitioners claim that by reasons of the pandemic the Petitioner No.1 had suffered financial loses and as such the Petitioner No.1 had made a Representation, dtd. 9/6/2022 addressed to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner for Waiver of interests and damages.

(3.) By a Letter, dtd. 20/6/2022 the Recovery Officer had called upon the Petitioners to make payment of interest of Rs.14,70,634.00 since, according to the Recovery Officer, an application for waiver can only be made in respect of damages. The Petitioners say that the Recovery Officer did not stop there, despite being aware of the Petitioner No.1's application for waiver, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sec. 8-F (3)(i) of the said Act, had called upon the Petitioner No.1's Banker to pay a sum of Rs.44,97.181. Subsequently, the Petitioners were served with a Communication, dtd. 21/11/2022, in the first week of December 2022 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Recovery), intimating the Petitioner No.1 that its application for waiver of damages was rejected, on the ground that the establishment was not registered under the BIFR, and no sanctioned rehabilitation scheme was operative.