Telangana High Court
Reg. P.F. Commr., Hyd. vs E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal, Delhi And ... on 10 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26871 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"......to issue Writ or Order or Direction especially in the nature of
Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated
6.11.2013 passed in Appeal ATA No.561(1)2012 and quash the same as
illegal and unjust in so for as it is against the petitioner and in
consequence direct the 2nd respondent to pay the dues as assessed
through order dated 15.5.2012 u/s 14B of the Act......"
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is an
establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after
referred to as 'the Act') vide Code No.AP/20768. It is the further case
of the petitioner that as per para No.38 of the provisions of the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme (herein after referred to as 'the
Scheme'), respondent No.2 has to pay the dues within 15 days of
closure of every month, but respondent No.2 has failed to pay the
dues for the period from 10/2003 to 4/2004, 4/2006, 6/2007 to
8/2007, therefore, the petitioner has initiated action under Section
14B of the Act and after hearing respondent No.2, the petitioner
passed an order, dated 15.02.2012 levying the damages and interest
under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order,
respondent No.2 preferred an appeal vide ATA No.561(1)2012 before
respondent No.1 and the appellate Tribunal, after considering the
entire material and also the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
vs. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal 1, set aside the
order, dated 15.02.2012 and allowed the said appeal on 06.11.2013.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate
Tribunal failed to appreciate that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the
dues for the period from 10/2003 to 4/2004, 4/2006, 6/2007 to
8/2007 as the same were not mentioned in the wage revision, but
respondent No.2 has remitted the amounts with delay and not
complied para No.38 of the provisions of the Scheme, therefore,
respondent No.2 is liable to pay the damages and penal amounts
under Section 7Q of the Act. As such, learned counsel prays that the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. The Tribunal has duly taken note of the memorandum of
settlement, dated 24.06.2004, whereby enhancement of wages was
done with retrospective effect for the months of October 2003 to June
2012(1)CLR 928
2004, but the enhanced wages as per the settlement were due and
payable and had in fact been paid to the employees on 09.07.2004.
Further, the Tribunal on examination of the entire evidence on record
has come to a conclusion that there was no delay in depositing the
dues and deposited the dues within 15 days of closure of every month
and in fact a finding has also been recorded that establishment has
paid the due amounts. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's case (1 supra), wherein
the Andhra Pradesh High Court has categorically held that in case of
revision of wages and/or allowances, effected with retrospective
effect, the obligation to make the contribution gets, in fact, postponed
to the actual due date of payment and disbursing the same and
recorded a finding that respondent No.2 cannot be said to be a
defaulter in remittance of PF dues and as such levy of damages is
contrary to the said decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and
as such, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 by setting aside
the impugned orders.
6. This Court, after careful examination of the grounds raised
herein and the orders passed by the appellate authority, is of the
opinion that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of respondent
No.2, which does not require interference and the writ petition filed is
devoid of merits and is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 10.06.2024
sus
