HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 07-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 7, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
Labour Law: 
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: 
Section-14-B-Employees' provident fund contributions-Delay in 
remittance-Damages-Recovery of-Period of limitation---Applicability-
He/d : The Act does not prescribe a period of limitation for assessment or 
recovery of damages. 
D 
Section 14-B-Damages-Levy of-Delay in passing the order-
Irretrievable prejudice arising due to-Plea of-Held: Such a plea must be 
taken before the department and proved-If the plea is rejected the same 
cannot be raised before the High Court unless clearly pleaded-Mere delay 
in initiating action under S. 14-B does not amount to prejudice-Constitution 
E of India, I950, Arts. 226 and 227-Practice and Procedure. 
Section 14-B-Damages-Levy of-Delay in passing order-Held: Does 
not amount to waiver. Section I 4-B-E.mp/oyees' provident fund 
contributions-Delay in remittance-Explanation for-Held: Power cut, strike, 
financial problems, delay in realisation of cheques or drafts etc. are not valid 
F grounds to escape liability. 
G 
Section 14-B-Employees' provident fund contributions-Delay in 
remittance-Order for recovery of damages-Passed after a long period-
Held: By itself does not vitiate the order of recovery damages. 
( 
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 : 
Paragraph 32(3)-Legal fiction-Held: Creates a fiction of 
.entrustment-Penal code, 1860, S. 495 Expln. I. Constitution of India, I950: 
Article 226. 
Writ petition---Dismissal of-In limine-Reasons for-Held: Ought to 
H be given, at least briefly, by High Court. 
4 
·• 
.. 
HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. v. U.O.I. 
5 
Words and Phrases: "Irretrievable prejudice "-Meaning of 
A 
~ 
The appellant delayed the remitting of employees' provident fund 
contribution within the period stipulated in paragraph 38. 10 of the Employees' 
provident fund Scheme, 1952. The Regional Provident fund Commissioner, 
after a lapse of 14 years, levied damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' 
Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 
B 
)' 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
the aforesaid levy, .vhich was dismissed in limine by a non-speaking order 
l'!erely saying "dismissed." Hence this appeal. 
__'.; 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the demand notice c 
issned in respect of the alleged belated payment was arbitrary and 
unreasonable that a period of limitation mnst be implied nnder the law for 
it would be wholly unreasonable to allow the power of recovery of damages 
to be exercised after a considerable lapse of time and that the demand was 
dropped in 1971 and, therefore, it must be deemed to have been waived. 
D 
'f'. 
-(, 
-~ 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1952 does not contain any provision prescribing a p~riod of 
limitation for assessment or recovery of damages. Initially, it was provided 
that the arrears could be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land E 
revenue. But by Act 37/53 Section 14-B was amended providing for a special 
procedure under Sections 8-B to 8-G. By Act 40173 Section ll"was amended 
by making the amount a first charge on the assets of the establishment if 
the arrears of employee's contribution were for a period of more then 6 
months. By Act 33/88, the charge was extended to the employee's share of F 
contribution as well. (14-C; D-E] 
1.2. In spite of all these amendments, over a period of more then thirty 
years, the Legislature did not think fit to make any provision prescribing 
a period of limitation. This is significant and it is clear that it is not the· G 
legislative intention to prescribe any period of limitation for computing and 
recovering the arrears. As the amounts are due to the Trust Fund and the 
,. 
~ 
recovery is not by suit, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not 
attracted. [14-F-G] 
.... 
Nityanand M Joshi v. LIC of India, (1970] 1 SCR 396; Bombay Gas H 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] I S.C.R. 
A Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, [19641 3 SCR 709; Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilet, 
[199515SCC5 and Coal Mines Provident Fund Commr., Dhanbadv. J. Lala 
& Sons, [1976] 3 SCR 365, relied on. 
R.P.F. Commr. v. K.T. Rolling Mills, [199511SCC181, affirmed. 
B 
State of Punjab v. Amirchand, (1964) 37 FJR 92 (P&H); Biria Cotton 
Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.