Telangana High Court
The Reg. Provident Fund ... vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.854 of 2007
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
06.06.2007 passed in W.P.No.10042 of 1998 by the learned
Single Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that a notification was
issued on 17.05.1977 under the provisions of the Employee's
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for
short, "the Act") bringing the Beedi Industry within the
purview of the Act. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and finally the petition was dismissed on 25.09.1985.
After dismissal of the matter by the Supreme Court, a
Tripartite Committee was constituted by the Central
Government for implementation of the Provident Fund
Scheme in respect of the Beedi industries. The Committee
recommended that the employees' share of contributions for
the period from June, 1977 to September, 1985 was to be
exempted unless and otherwise the employees and employers
themselves come forward to pay the past contributions in
lump sum or in any easy installments. The waiver of
employees' share was subject to condition that the employer
shall pay the entire amount of contribution payable by
themselves immediately and if the amount is being remitted
2
in installments already granted, such amount shall be paid in
full on or before 31.03.1990.
The facts of the case also reveal that M/s. Desai
Brothers Limited, respondent No.2 in the present writ appeal,
has complied with the recommendations of the Tripartite
Committee by depositing the employers' share of provident
fund. The facts further reveal that action was initiated under
Section 14-B of the Act for levy of damages and in those
circumstances, as interest was already paid @ 12% by the
employer, the employer has approached the Appellate
Tribunal by filing an appeal under the Act. The Tribunal by a
very exhaustive order has arrived at a conclusion that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case specially when
the matter has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the employer is certainly not liable to pay damages under
Section 14-B, and set aside the order passed by the
Department under Section 14-B of the Act.
The facts further reveal that in the present case the
employer was not responsible for the delay. The matter was
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A Tripartite
Committee was constituted and as the amount was paid by
the employer along with the interest, as recommended by the
Committee, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion
that the employer is not liable to pay the damages. The order
of the Tribunal was challenged by the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner before this Court by way of a writ
petition i.e., W.P.No.10042 of 1998 and the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of
the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and as the employer has already paid interest and
the industry came within the purview of the Act in view of the
notification dated 17.05.1977, which was subjected to judicial
scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of
the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single
Judge were justified in passing the orders, which are under
challenge in the present writ appeal. This Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
11.02.2022
ES
