B KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order contained in letter dated 21st March, 2005 at Annexure 9, whereby the liability of Rs. 88,84,951 was credited on account of damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has preferred this application.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that on earlier round of litigations over the same subject matter, this court had been pleased to remand the matter to the concerned competent authorities under the aforesaid Act to pass fresh reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner for fixing its liability under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and submitted his categorical stand that mines work was itself closed w.e.f. 10.2.1994 due to nonrenewal of the mining lease. Further it was pointed out to the authorities that the notice in question itself disclosed levy of 100% damages, which is contrary to the Scheme in Para 32A of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. The petitioner had also raised other issues that the liabilities after 1993 have been saddled upon its Establishment without taking into account the fact that no work had been executed by the petitioner as the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled on 29.3.1993 and the respondents have thereafter proceeded to issue the impugned order contained at Annexure 9 dated 21st March, 2005. It is further submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the order shows complete non-application of mind as none of the contentions of the petitioner have been dealt with by recording any reason of findings of fact. Moreover, the chart which is part of the impugned order, does not disclose the break up of the amount of damages levied for the different period, which has been charged upon the relevant periods, in which the petitioner has been found to be defaulter. In absence of the order being speaking order the petitioner is constrained to assail the same before the Higher Forum/Appellate Forum.

(3.) The respondents have appeared and filed their counter-affidavit, in which they have categorically stated that the impugned order has been passed after giving due opportunity to the petitioner in terms of the previous order passed by this Court and thereafter the discrepancies pointed out by the Establishment have taken into regard in the impugned order which has been passed after proper rectification of the discrepancies.