LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-131

INTERNATIONAL COMBUSTION (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

Decided On February 15, 2019
International Combustion (India) Limited Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Company has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated February 15, 2018 passed by the respondent no. 1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Kolkata thereby canceling the exemption granted to certain employees of the petitioner Company under Section 17(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act of 1952"). By the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 has also directed the present petitioner, being the establishment as well as the Board of Trustees of the Trust to prepare past accumulation statement properly as on February 28, 2018 with up-to-date interest credited on each member of the Trust Fund in respect of all the existing employees as well as the unclaimed monies of the trust fund and submit the same along with the auditor's report as on the date of withdrawal of exemption.

(2.) It is to be noted that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 further records that the establishment, that is, the present petitioner is liable to pay Damages under Section 14B and Penal Interest under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 for belated remittance of past accumulations.

(3.) When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner employer that only seven employees remained members of the Trust and were enjoying the benefit of exemption under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1952. It is further submitted that before passing of the impugned order by the respondent no.1 all the said seven employees had already withdrawn their respective accumulation and they ceased to be the members of the Trust. Thus, with the last seven employees of the petitioner establishment withdrawing their respective accumulations, the impugned order of cancellation of the exemption under Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1952 issued by the respondent no. 1 does not entail any serious consequence.