ANTHONY SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY VICE PRINCIPAL, SRI C.A. FRANCIS, RANCHI Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2004 contained at Annexure-4 by which the order imposing damages under Section 14B of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been passed for the period of March, 1982 to January, 1997 to the tune of Rs. 2,37,955/- against the petitioner-school. The petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 30.09.2004 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2 whereby the bankers of this petitioner have been asked to pay the amount of Rs. 2,37,955/-under Section 8F of the Act.

(2.) According to the petitioner, notice was issued under the provisions 7Q and 14B of the Act dated 09.07.2003 for the payment of interest and damages for belated remittance under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. Petitioner filed his show-cause dated 24.09.2003 contained at Annexure-3 giving break up of the details of the remittance for the certain period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order contained at Annexure-4, petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 2,37,955/- as damages and interest under Section 7Q and 14B of the Act failing which further action will be taken against him for recovering the damages as per law alongwith interest under Section 7Q of the Act.

(3.) It is submitted on the part of the petitioner that although the respondents have taken into account the objection of the petitioner and granted certain relief of a sum of Rs. 40,000/-which was proposed under notice Annexure-2, but still a sum of Rs. 2,37,955 has been levied as damages. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order does not give any break up of the details of the damages levied upon the petitioner for the period in question and it is not clear from the order impugned that which part of the petitioner's objection has been accepted and which part has been overruled, which is necessary to assail the impugned order before appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Patna High Court in a case of The Jamshedpur General Consumers' Central Co-operative Stores, Ltd. and another Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1979 LAB. I C. 317 in which it is observed that Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order only more so while deciding as to whether for the default in any particular year any penal damages were called for at all and if so to what extent.