ORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II/OIC, ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application has been filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Regional Provident Commissioner, Rourkela in the matter of a proceeding under section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short as the 'EPF Act').

(2.) The Petitioner-Company on receipt of the show cause notice as aforementioned submitted the written explanation contending therein that the mine in question was transferred to it in the year 2007 and after the said transaction the Petitioner-Company paid all the arrear provident fund dues. Therefore, the petitioner company submitted that in view of such diligent conduct making timely payment, no case is made out for imposition of penalty in adherence to the provision of section 14-B of the EPF Act. According to it that liability in so far as the damage by way of penalty is concerned for default in payment of the contributions/dues under the EPF Act in time remains with the previous management and not with the Petitioner-Company which has immediately acted upon in clearing contributions/dues under the EPF Act with utmost promptitude. In essence, it is said that the default being at the behest of earlier Management, the recovery of the damage by way of penalty is not with the present Management. The initiation of the proceedings was further challenged being barred by limitation:-

(3.) All the above writ applications (A & B), thus involve common points and questions of law having the only difference in factual setting relating to the period for which the penal damage has been imposed which also refers to the period concerning the prevalence of same rate of penal damages; all being prior to the year 1991. Therefore, the said writ applications have been heard together for their disposal by this common order.