H R GANDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he is the sole proprietor of M/s Havell's Electrical (Sales) Corporation, situated at Faridabad, District Gurgaon. He is liable to contribute to the Provident Fund under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). There was delay in depositing the Providend Fund and Administrative Charges for the periods from March, 1962 to September, 1962, and from June, 1963 to November, 1966. He was asked vide letter dated 14th October, 1969, copy Annexure 'A', by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent No. 2, to pay -a sum of Rs. 30,937-25 as damages imposed by the State of Haryana. respondent No. 1. On receipt of the letter, he filed a representation dated 10th December, 1969, before respondent No. 1. He was informed by it vide its letter dated 13th February, 1970, that the matter was receiving attention and the final reply would be sent in due course. On 13th March, 1970, Mr. A. D. Sethi, Office Superintendent of the petitioner, approached respondent No. 1 to know about the fate of his representation. The Secretary to the Haryana Government informed him that he could not decide the representation as the Government had already taken the decision. The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 14th October, 1969, calling upon him to pay Rs. 30,937-25 as damages inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such determination and that no speaking order was passed by the Government regarding determination of the damages.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Sarin that the petitioner was not given a show-cause notice regarding the proceedings in which the damages were assessed by the State Government. He urges that it was incumbent on it to have done so. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that various notices were given to the petitioner by the, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner but he did not make any representation. Thereafter, the State Government made the assessment on the basis of sliding scales of penalties as laid down by the State Government in its letter dated 25th January, 1963 (copy Annexure R- XII). According to him, after the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had served the notices on the petitioner, no fresh notice was required to be served by the State Government.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and given thoughtful consideration to their arguments. In order to determine the question, it will be relevant to refer to S. 14-B of the Act, as it existed at that time. It reads as follows :