MAHARAJA LAKSHMAN SEN MEMORIAL COLLEGE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dtd. 2/3/2016 Annexure P-2 passed by Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner under S.7(i) of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, 'Act' came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts, as emerge from the record, are that since the petitioner-Institution failed to deposit the provident fund and other allied dues to its employees, as per provisions of the Act and Employees Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter, 'Scheme') framed thereunder, office of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice on 29/4/2014, calling upon the petitioner to show cause that why damages under S.14B and interest under S.7Q may not be recovered on account of default in making payment within stipulated period. Alongwith aforesaid Show Cause Notice, details of default committed by the petitioner-Institution were furnished, enabling the petitioner Institution to deposit the amount of damages under S.14B and interest under S.7Q of the Act, within seven days. Though, the petitioner-Institution by way of a detailed reply dtd. 13/5/2014 (Annexure P-16) rendered explanation for not depositing the provident fund and other allied dues within stipulated time but the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dtd. 23/3/2015 (Annexure P-20) directed the petitioner-Institution to deposit a sum of Rs.95,75,435.00 i.e. Rs.64,42,965.00 on account of damages under S.14B and Rs.31,32,470.00 on account of interest under S.7!. Pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner-Institution deposited Rs.31,32,470.00under S.7Q and 25% of amount levied on account of damages under S.14B and amount of Rs.48,28,671.00 remained to be paid by the petitioner-Institution.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 23/3/2015 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, petitioner-Institution preferred an appeal under S.7I of the Act (Annexure P-22) before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, who vide order dtd. 2/3/2016 rejected the appeal, as such, petitioner-Institution has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing and setting aside order dtd. 2/3/2016 (Annexure P-25) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and order dated 23. 3.2015 (Annexure P-20) passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimla.