CENTRAL BOARD, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re: CAN 1888 of 2016

(2.) It is necessary that certain facts have to be placed on record in order to understand the real controversy between the parties.

(3.) The respondent No.2 before us is an establishment admittedly covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952. It is an admitted fact that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the assessment of damages under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 in respect of E. P. F. Account Nos.1, 2, 10, 21 and 22. It is also not in dispute that several amounts were due in respect of above said account numbers. Therefore, the Commissioner (Damage), Regional Office, Kolkata imposed costs by rectifying the damages in terms of amended enactment as per order dated 4.9.2014 which came to Rs.2,34,42,377/-. This became subject matter of challenge before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the impugned order before the learned Judge is dated 20.11.2014.