Delhi High Court
Regional Provident Fund ... vs E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal & Anr. on 28 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 28, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3321/2001
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate
versus
E.P.F. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
1. Petitioner's order of 12th July, 2000 under Section 14-B of The
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act) levying damages for belated
remittances of provident fund and other contributions by second
respondent herein, during the period from September, 1990 upto
November, 1999 stands modified by the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide order
of 4th January, 2001, which is impugned by this petition.
2. Petitioner vide order of 12th July, 2000 imposed damages of
`3,96,842/- (Rupees Three Lac Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and
Forty Two) on account of default in depositing provident fund, etc., by
second respondent and the said order stands modified by impugned order
to the effect that flat rate of 22% per annum be imposed on account of
default, where the period of delay is more than two months and where it
is more, the rate of damages be imposed as per paragraph No.32-A of
The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 as amended from 1st
September, 1991.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner informs that the
scheme has been subsequently amended in the year 2008 whereby the
rate of damages has been varied, but the applicable rates in the instant
case would be as amended from 1st September, 1991 as the period of
delay is from September, 1990 upto November, 1999. Learned counsel
for petitioner assails impugned order on the ground that there is no
discretion with the Tribunal to vary the rate of damages to be levied and
the Tribunal has erred in reducing the rate of damages on respondent's
plea of financial difficulty. Reliance is placed upon a decision of High
Court of Bombay in Vegetables Vitamins Food Co. Ltd. V. Regional PF
Commissioner, Maharashtra, Goa, 1995 (1) LLJ 1145 to submit that the
rate of damages as provided in paragraph No. 32-A of The Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, as applicable, prevails and the
determination under Section 14-B of the EPF Act is to be computed
strictly in terms of paragraph No. 32-A of the aforesaid Scheme. Reliance
is also placed by petitioner's counsel upon Supreme Court's decision in
Hindustan Times Ltd. V. Union of India and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 242 to
submit that financial difficulty cannot be a ground to vary the rate of
damages on delayed payments and so, impugned order deserves to be set
aside.
4. As per order of 12th May, 2016, the respondents have been served,
but none has appeared on their behalf on the last few dates of hearing.
Even today, none appears on behalf of respondents. In such a situation,
there is no option left except to hear this petition with the assistance of
learned counsel for petitioner.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and petitioner's
order of 12th July, 2000 and after going through the decisions cited, I find
that financial stringency cannot be a ground to vary the rate of damages
as provided in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. The
Tribunal has erred in modifying petitioner's order of 12 th July, 2000 to
direct the reassessment at flat rate of 22% per annum where the default is
of more than two months.
6. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order is modified and
petitioner's order of 12th July, 2000 is restored with the rider that
impugned order shall operate for the period from September, 1990 to 31 st
August, 1991.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2017
j
