Rajasthan High Court
Rpfc vs M/S Rajasthan State Cooperativ ... on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:7755] (1 of 4) [CW-161/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2001
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Nidhi
Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Rajasthan State Cooperative Union, Nehru Sahakar
Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur through its Chief Executive
Officer.
2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 7 th Floor, 60 Sky
Lark Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
14/02/2024
1. The present writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
your Lordships will be pleased to accept this writ
petition and;
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
impugned order dated 17.09.1998/05.10.1998
(Annexure-2) passed by E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No.ATA/12(38)/98 and upheld the order
dated 02.06.98 passed by Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure-1)
whereby a sum of Rs.4,17,464/- was levied as
damages under Section 14 B of the Act.
[2024:RJ-JP:7755] (2 of 4) [CW-161/2001]
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
giving any other relief in the interest of justice.
Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no. 1 is an establishment covered under the provisions
of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (for short "EPF Act"). As per para 38 of Employees Provident
Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short "EPF Scheme"), it is the duty of
every employer/establishment to deposit the amount of provident
fund contribution (both shares) within fifteen days of the close of
every month. For the period from July, 1973 to June, 1989, since
there was a delay in part of respondent no.1 to deposit the dues,
the petitioner had levied damages as per Section 14B of EPF Act,
to the tune of Rs. 4,17,464/- vide order dated 02.06.1998. The
said order was challenged before the EPF Appellate Tribunal (for
short "Tribunal"), and the Tribunal set aside the order dated
02.06.1998 and remanded the matter back for afresh
consideration based on the observations made in the impugned
order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
respondent no.1 was duty bound to deposit amount of PF within
fifteen days of closure of every month in account as per the law.
Since the respondent no.1 was depositing the due amount in Fixed
Deposit, which is not as per the provisions of the EPF Act and EPF
Scheme, the petitioner had rightly levied damages. It is further
submitted that even if the respondent no.1 is a government
undertaking and relies on funding from the State government, the
same cannot be a justifiable ground to condone the delay.
[2024:RJ-JP:7755] (3 of 4) [CW-161/2001]
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the respondent is a government aided establishment fully
dependent upon funds from the government to pay the salaries. It
is submitted that as per the prevalent scheme at the time,
formulated by an expert committee, the respondent was duly
depositing the PF amount in fixed deposit and was also extending
the benefit of interest component to the PF department. It is also
submitted that the appellate authority, after considering the entire
record, has recorded a specific finding that the petitioner has not
been able to establish any loss and/or damages warranting levy of
damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act.
4. Heard and considered.
5. At the outset, it must be noted that the impugned appellate
order is essentially a remand order. The bonafides of the
respondent no.1 are beyond doubt. There was no act on part of
respondent no.1, deliberate or otherwise, to alienate the funds
earmarked for PF. The due amount of PF was duly deposited in
fixed deposit as and when salaries were paid. The delay, if any,
was also not intentional. The appellate authority order also
records a finding that there was no quantified damages.
6. In these facts and circumstances, in view of the fact that
Section 14B of the EPF Act uses the word 'may', this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority,
considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments of Hindustan
Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa: (1970) 3 SCC 687 and
judgment of this Court in case of M/s Rajasthan State Mines &
Minerals Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
[2024:RJ-JP:7755] (4 of 4) [CW-161/2001]
Tribunal & Anr. (SBCWP No. 4810/2023; decided on
29.03.2023).
7. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Ashish Kumar /14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
