POYSHA INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order (under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 dated 13.12.93) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands which was communicated to the petitioner by Memo No. A/045/WB /25896/Damage /50/35 dated 25.1.94 .

(2.) The petitioner Company's case is that it has its factory at Budge Budge Trunk Road, Post Office-Maheshtolla, District-24 Parganas (S). The company was having business of manufacturing different types of goods. It was alleged that it wanted a separate provident code number. The said authorities did not allot the Same initially for its Budge Budge factory. Petitioner thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 41,987.30 paise with the Provident Fund Authorities towards its provident fund dues from September, 1987 to July, 1988 and the said authorities was informed about the matter on 31.8.88. On November, 11, 1988 a separate code number being WB/25896 was allotted in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner further alleged that after the payment of above mentioned amount the petitioner was regularly depositing the provident fund contribution as required under the provisions of law. The petitioner's further case is that the initial delay in depositing the provident fund contribution from 1987 to 1989 was mainly due to the non-receipt of the code number. The petitioner was thereafter served with a notice under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be stated as 'the Act') and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner without proper consideration of the said fact assessed such damage at Rs. 33,419/- levied the same on the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that the employees were recruited from April 1, 1987, so they could not be brought under the purview of the Act with effect from December, 1986. It was further alleged that the company is a sick unit and the case of the petitioner was referred to the Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR). The proceeding was started by Case No. 58/83. On October 26, 1993 the company was declared to the sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [in short S.I.C.(S.P.) Act]. It was also alleged that the matter is now pending for final disposal before the bench of the BIER. It was accordingly claimed that the respondent authorities cannot take any step against the petitioner under section 22(1) of the S.I.C. (S.P.) Act, 1985. The petitioner accordingly filed the writ application praying for rule in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw/cancel/rescind impugned notice.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition it is alleged by the respondents that the Calcutta unit of the petitioner was started as a part and parcel of its principal establishment in Maharashtra and so though no separate code number could be issued initially still such code number was allotted subsequently to the petitioner for administrative reasons. The petitioner did not pay the provident fund contribution within due date. It was further alleged that the plea of sickness of the company, even if true, cannot absorb the petitioner from the responsibility of making the payment of statutory dues in time. It was also alleged that the respondent were not informed that the company was declared as a sick industrial company.