CUTTACK ELECTRICAL DIVISION Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the order dated 24.2.2010(Annexure -4) passed by the Presiding Officer, EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A.No.49(10)2006.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the order dated 24.2.2010 has been challenged on the following grounds

(3.) While on the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted regarding first ground that it cannot be said that only on the ground of delay proceeding under section 14B of the Act,1952 will be said to be vitiated ifso facto, rather petitioner has to show prejudice caused to him due to delay. He contends that since the petitioner is not aggrieved with the order passed under section 7A of the Act,1952 rather he has paid the amount under section 7A of the Act which means that he has admitted his fault in not depositing the statutory amount in time and as such proceeding under section14B of the Act,1952 has been initiated and accordingly the liability has been casted upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount under section14B of the Act. It has been contended that if on the ground of delay if a proceeding is initiated by the authority under section 14B of the Act,1952 would be quashed, then scope of purpose for which Section14B has been inserted in the Act,1952 will become redundant for the reason that Section 14B has been inserted in the Act in order to put deterrent and also damage upon the erring establishment so that they may not do in future for whose benefit of the section has been promulgated.