LexM/S. K. STREETLITE ELEC1RIC CORPORATION versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• MIS. K. S1REETLITE ELEC1RIC CORPORATION A ... v. REGIONALPROVIDENf FUND COMMISSIONER, HARYANA APRIL 9, 2001 [S. RAJENDRABABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952- Sections 14-B and 20-Damages for belated deposit of contribution to Provident Fund-Delay in initiating proceedings-Calculation of damages- Held, delay not a ground for setting aside proceedings unless specific plea of c prejudice raised and established-Damages confined to 25 per cent of the total damages imposed. ... Respondent-Commissioner issued show canse notice to appellant- Corporation for levying damages for belated deposit of contributions to the Fund under Section 14-B of Employees' Provident Funds & Miscella- D neous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period from July 1976 to June 1980. The respondent, by an order, imposed damages of Rs. 88, 731.25. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the order or the respondent, it was dismissed. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the respondent E has initiated action under the Act for levy of damages belatedly after 6 to 10 years from the period of default; and that the order of the respondent levying damages is not in accordance with the rates set out in the instruc- tions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Delay in initiating proceedings nnder Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 will not he a ground for setting aside an order imposing damages unless spe- cific plea of prejudice is raised before the Provident Fund Commissioner G and establishment. [1027-E) Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [1998] 2 SCC 242, .A relied on. 2. From the statement of calculation of damages prepared by the re- H 1025 1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R. A spondent for delay in payments, it is not possible to discern tbe rationale adopted in the matter ofimposition of penalty at different rates for different periods of default. It is appropriate to confine tbe damages leviable on an over all consideration to tbe extent of 25 per cent of the total damages im- posed. (1028-E-GJ B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6498 of 1998. c D E F G H From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.98 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3841 of 1987. A.P. Bhandari and S.C. Patel for the Appellant. Anoop George Chaudhary, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, C. Radhakrishna and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of .the Conrt was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. A notice dated December 30, 1986 was served upon the appellant to show cause why damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for period from July 1976 to June 1980 be imposed upon the appellant. On March 13, 1987 an order was made by the respondent imposing damages to the extent of Rs. 88, 731.25 on account of belated deposit of the amount towards the provident fund. The appellant claimed that delay in depositing the amount in certain cases is only for a few days: that even so the respondent had assessed the damages in most of the cases at 100 per cent and that the actual loss suffered by the respondent is only to the extent of Rs. 664. Challenging the order dated March 13, 1987 the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that the order is not in accordance with the instructions issued on November 3, 1982; that the order has been passed at a very belated stage inasmuch as for the period ending in July 1976 the notice has been issued in the year 1987; that para 32(A) was inserted into the scheme after tbe amendment of the Act as under: Period of Default Rate of Damages [%age of arrears per annum] (a) Less than two months 17 (b) Two months and above but less than four months 22 STREE'TUTE ELECTRIC CORPN. v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT F1JND COM MR. [RAJENDRA BABU. J.) 1027 ( c) Four months and above but less than six 27 A months ( d) Six months and above 37 The w1it petition was resisted by the respondent by taking the stand that the damages have been levied in accordance with law. The Division B Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave. In this appeal, it is contended that : (i)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.