M/S ALKA PRINTED PRODUCTS PVT LIMITED Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, HARYANA RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.W. Ps Nos. 3331, 5198, 5199 of 1985, 920, 1214 and 4121 of 1986 as common questions of law are involved in all these writ petitions.

(2.) IT would suffice to notice briefly the facts set out in C.W.P. No. 1214 of 1986. The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is covered by the provisions of the Employee's Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the schemes framed thereunder. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Respondent No. 1, issued a notice to it vide letter dated 5.7.1985 Annexure P. 1 proposing therein levy of damages under Section 14 -B of the Act for different months spanning over the period from May, 1976 to July, 1984. The Petitioner submitted reply dated 16.7.1985 Annexure P.2 contending that the claim for damages for the period from May, 1976 to December, 1981 was barred by time and no claim for damages could be raised for the period preceding three years before the issuance of the notice Annexure P.1. It was also contended that the rate for levy of damages up to October, 1977 was 25% of the amount of contribution delayed and not 100%. as proposed in the aforesaid notice. The Petitioner also pleaded that there was a strike in its factory from 1.7.1982 to 23.9.1982 during which period it suffered financial losses which consequently affected the payment position including that of the provident fund. It was also contended that for the months of December, 1981, April 1983, May 1983, June 1983, December, 1983, January 1984, May 1984 and June 1984, the delay was only for one day and therefore this delay should be ignored. It was also stated that from October, 1982, the rate of levy of damages had been at the rate of 25% per annum and there was no mala fide intention on its part to deliberately delay the payment of contribution. Delay in payment had in fact been caused by factors like strike in the factory, financial stringency etc. The Petitioner contends that in spite of an elaborate explanation submitted by it, the Respondent arbitrarily passed the order dated 8.10.1985 Annexure P.3 levying damages under Section 14 -B ibid on it amounting to Rs. 92049 55. The levy of damages has been challenged on four grounds which are summarised hereunder:

(3.) THE petition has been opposed by the Respondent. Written statement has been filed by him. All the contentions raised have been countered. It has been maintained that the damages levied to the tune of Rs. 92049.55 vide Annexure P.3 are in accordance with law and the Petitioner is bound to make payment of the same. Proceedings for the recovery of the said amount are quite in accord with the procedure prescribed.