Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2243 Del

                                                      UNREPORTABLE


*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WP (C) No.2689/2011


                                       Date of Decision: April 27, 2011


      STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD             ..... Petitioner
                     through Mr. K.K.Roy, Senior Advocate with
                     Mr. Anukul Ch. Pradhan, Advocate

                      versus


      REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
                     through Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.    Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
      the judgment? No
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

It is not disputed by the petitioner that the provident fund

contribution in respect of the employees, who were initially

appointed as trainees, was not deposited with the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner so long as they remained trainees. It

is also not disputed that once those employees became regular,

then also the contribution vis-à-vis them was not deposited for the

WP (C) No.2689/2011 Page 1 period they remained trainees and it was only after notice was

received from the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner that the

same was deposited. Since the contribution was deposited

belatedly, proceedings under Section 14B of the Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were

initiated against the petitioner resulting in order dated

July 31, 2009 imposing a penalty of ` 2,20,518/- upon the petitioner.

The order so passed was challenged in appeal before the

Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found

no merit in the appeal and hence, dismissed the same on

December 24, 2010. It is this order of December 24, 2010 and the

order dated July 31, 2009 which have been assailed before me.

It is submitted that the order dated July 31, 2009 does not

take into consideration the fact that soon after notice under

Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 was issued to the petitioner, it had deposited

the contribution and therefore, the damages levied upon it were

uncalled for.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I find no

infirmity in the order dated July 31, 2009. As noticed above, it is the

petitioner's own case that the contribution in respect of those

employees who during a particular period were trainees, was

deposited only after notice was issued by the Assistant Provident

WP (C) No.2689/2011 Page 2 Fund Commissioner and not prior thereto. Hence, the delay in

depositing the amount is not disputed. The petitioner before me

also has given no justification as to why it waited for a notice from

the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to deposit the amount.

There is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

APRIL 27, 2011
ka




WP (C) No.2689/2011                                             Page 3