HALWASIA VIDYA VIHAR(SR. SEC. SCHOOL), HARYANA versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 27-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
HALWASIA VIDYA VIHAR(SR. SEC. SCHOOL), HARYANA
A
v.
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
MARCH 27, 2006
[ARJJITPASAYAT ANDTARUN CHATTERJEE,JJ.]
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;
Section 14(B):
Educational Institution/School affiliated to Education Department of
State Government-Contributory Provident Fund Accounts maintained as
B
c
per instructions of the State Government-Transferring of affiliation to Central
Board ·of Secondary Education-Provident Fund Scheme under 1952 Act
became applicable-Default in making payment of contributions-levy of
damage-Waiver-Held: Reduction or waiver can be done in terms of Section D
14-B of the Act-Since there was no delay on the part of the school in
question in making the deposit of the Fund with the State Government in terms
of Scheme and also taking into account the special features involved, the
damage imposed shall be restricted to 25% of the amount as levied by the
Provident Fund Commissioner-Directions issued.
The appellant-school was affiliated to the Education Department of
E
the State Government of Haryana and making contribution in a
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of the State Government. Appellant
transferred its affiliatiUon to Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE). As per CBSE bye-laws, appellant-Institution was required to F
follow the State Government rules regarding salary and service conditions
of its staff members. Accordingly, the appellant continued the existing
scheme of contributory provident fund. Later, as per the instructions of
the Regional Provident Fund Authorities a scheme under the Employees
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act was required to be G
adopted by the appellant. But the authorities directed the scheme to be
made operative retrospectively. The appellant started depositing the
provident fund contributions in respect of each employee with the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner and got transferred the accumulated
455
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A balance with the State Government to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme
account in terms of the Act However, a notice under Section 14(8) of the Act
was issued by the Commissioner demanding contribution under the scheme
retrospectively, for the entire period. The appellant took the stand that since
the deposit had been made with the State Government Authorities in terms of
B the then applicable scheme of Contributory Provident Fund of the State
Government, there was no scope of levy of any damage. The Provident Fund
Commissioner imposed damages of Rs. 14,50,172/-. Aggrieved, the appellant
preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The order was
challenged by the authorities before the High Court. The High Court relying
on a decision of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S.D.
C College, Hoshiarpur & Ors. held that the penalty as levied by the
Commissioner was to be maintained. Hence the present appeal.
The appellant contended that there was absolutely no remiss on their
part as the scheme had been followed by them scrupulously; that there
D was transfer of the amount which would show that by no stretch of
imagination it can be conceived that there was any default, much less
intentional.
The respondent-Commissioner submitted that the appellant was
aware of its liability and had filled up the form to make the deposits with
E the provident fund authorities but continued to make the deposit with the
state Government. Thus, the High Court was justified in its conclusion
allowing the damage.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD:l.1. In terms of Section 14-8 of the Employees Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, reduction or waiver can be done
in the indicated circumstances. [459-GJ
1.2. In the instant case, there was no allegation that there was any delay
in making the deposit with the Government under the scheme which was being
G followed by the appellant. Even otherwise in the case of Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner v. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur & Ors, this Court did not
maintain the levy of damages at 100% and reduced it to 25%. Taking into
account the special features involved, the damage imposed shall be restricted
to 25% of the amount levied by the respondent-Commissioner. (460-A-8(
H
HAL W ASIA VIDY A VIHAR (SR. SEC. SCHOOL)"· THE R.EGlONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR [PASA Y AT.J.] 4 5 7
Regional Provid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.