Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rpf Commissioner Haryana Fbad vs The Employees Provident Fund A on 19 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151124
CWP-14354-2000 (O&M) 1
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14354-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision:19.11.2024
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER FARIDABAD
......... Petitioner
Versus
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate and
Mr. Devyansh, Advocate for
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 25.05.2000 (Annexure P-4) whereby Appellate Tribunal under
Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short
'1952 Act') has set aside order passed by Assessing Authority.
2. The respondent applied for allotment of code under 1952 Act
on 22.09.1997 and it was actually allotted on 31.03.1999. The respondent
was liable to deposit its contribution from 22.09.1997 whereas it
deposited its contribution after getting code from Provident Fund
Authorities. On account of delayed deposit of contribution, the petitioner-
Provident Fund Authorities imposed damages to the tune of Rs.20,093/-,
under Section 14B of 1952 Act upon the respondent who preferred an
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151124
appeal before Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 16.11.1999
whereby damages were imposed. The Appellate Tribunal has set aside
order passed by Assessing Authority.
3. The findings recorded by Appellate Tribunal are reproduced
as below:
"1. For appellant Shri M.M. Kaushal, Advocate and for
respondent Sh. Sanjiv Das, Advocate.
2. This is an appeal against order dated 16.11.1999
passed under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for delayed deposit of PF
contribution for the period from September, 1997 to
November, 1998.
3. The contention of the appellant before the 14B
authority and in this appeal is the that the appellant applied
for allotment of a code number on 22.9.1997 and it was
allotted only on 31.3.1999. The appellant was waiting for
allotment of a code number wherein to deposit the amount.
But he was not allotted a code number and E.0. Shri Kalra in
November, 1998 advised to deposit the amount without a
code number and then forthwith appellant deposited the PF
contribution.
4. The learned 14B authority held that employer should
have started compliance with the provisions of the Act even
though no code number was allotted and when he has
committed a default he is liable to pay the penalty. The
learned counsel for both the sides before me also have put
the contention of their respective parties.
5. On similar facts in a Bombay case Hon'ble Bombay
High Court has held that unless a code number is allotted
deposit of PF contribution is not possible because the code
number is to be mentioned in all the returns and statements
and also in challan numbers. Under the rules no such
provision has been shown where it is mentioned Challan that
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151124
PF contribution should be deposited by the employer even if
no code no. Is allotted. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court
further held that although the member of the scheme suffers
a loss but that loss is to be recovered from the officer who
has delayed in allotting a code number. I am also of the view
that it is not possible for the employer to deposit amount of
PF contribution without allotting a code number and if the
code number when an application is moved by an employer
to allot same, any loss suffered by the member Department
should be recovered from the officer responsible for the
delay. The appeal is fit to be allowed and the impugned
order to be set aside."
4. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner submits that
there are judgments of different Courts contrary to judgment of Bombay
High Court. The Appellate Tribunal has wrongly relied upon judgment of
Bombay High Court.
5. Concededly the amount involved is Rs.20,093/- and there is
at-least one judgment of High Court which squarely covers grievance of
the respondent. Considering the amount involved and paras 50-52 of
judgment of Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in
Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 996, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with
the impugned order.
6. Dismissed.
7. Pending misc. application, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
19.11.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
