BAJAJ BRICK KILN INDUSTRIES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to recover the amount of damages levied under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") from respondent No. 3 with a prayer to refund the amount of damages deposited by the petitioner under protest, along with letter dated 5.3.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased a brick kiln, earlier owned by Mukund Lal. The firm was known as M/s Bajaj Brick Kiln Industries. As a result of the settlement between the parties, earlier firm, which was under the proprietorship of Mukund Lal, stood dissolved on 29.8.1995, which was taken over by the petitioner. As there was some default on account of provident fund dues for the period prior to the petitioner's taking over the firm, as per the terms in the retirement deed, the earlier owner, namely, Mukund Lal had to discharge his liability up to the date of his retirement i.e. 25.8.1995. He further submitted that even as per the provisions of section 17B of the Act, only recovery of contribution could be made from the petitioner and not' the damages as has been held by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. M/s Karnataka Forest Plantations Corporation Ltd. Bangalore,2000 3 L& SJR 380.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 17B of the Act the transferor and transferee of an establishment are equally liable to pay the contributions, including even the damages, as aforesaid Section does not make any distinction in the contributions and damages. He further submitted that the damages have been levied on the petitioner for the period, which included the period prior to the petitioner's taking over the establishment and even subsequent thereto. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order never challenged the same by filing appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Act. Present writ petition filed by the petitioner, is highly belated.