THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus S.D. COLLEGE, HOSHIARPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 28-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
A 
v. 
S.D. COLLEGE, HOSHIARPUR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 19 52: 
S.14-B-Non-compliance with the provisions of the Act-Levy of damages-
Contribution amount not deposited to the Fund-Instead kept in University 
account-Penalty imposed-Waiver of-No discretion left to the 
Commissioner to totally waive the penalty-Discretion to decide the rate C 
at which the penalty is computed-25% of damages computed by way of 
penalty-Since amount deposited in fixed deposit with 9% interest, balance 
amount to be deposited within six weeks. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14576-77 D 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.95 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 637 and 692 of 1995. 
R. Venugopal Reddy, T.C. Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellant. E 
S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fezlin Anam and Ms. Monica Mehta for 
Punjab University. 
Randhir Jain for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
F 
G 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on December 6, 1995 H 
27 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A in CWP Nos. 637 and 692 of 1995. 
The admitted position is that the appellant had applied the provisions 
of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 
(for short, the 'Act') to the respondent Institution by notification dated 
March 6, 1982. Calling the notification in question, the respondents had 
B filed writ petition in this Court. This court by judgment dated January 29, 
1988 had held that the Act would apply to the educational institutions and, 
therefore, they are required to comply with the notification issued under 
the Act. This Court had directed thus: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"Shri S.K. Bagga, learned counsel appears for the petitioners. 
We do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners 
in these cases that the Employees' Provident Funds and 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 
'the Act') has no application to the educational institutions, who 
are petitioners in these cases. We, therefore, dismiss all these 
cases. 
We direct that the petitioners shall comply with the Act and the 
schemes framed thereunder regularly with effect from 1.2.1988. 
Whatever arrears they have to pay under the Act and the schemes 
in respect of the period between 1.3.1982 and 1.2.1988 shall be 
paid by each of the petitioners within such time as may be granted 
by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Jfthe petitioners 
pay all the arrears payable from I st March, 1982 upto I st 
February 1988 in accordance with the directions of the Regional 
Provident Fund Commissioner he shall not levy any damages 
for the delay in payment of the arrears. Having regard to the 
special facts of these cases the subscribers (the employees) shall 
not be entitled to any interest on the arrears. The writ petitions 
are disposed of accordingly. No costs." 
In spite of the directions issued by this Court, instead of complying 
G with the orders of this Court, the respondents continued to deposit the 
amounts with the University. The respondents, thus, have not complied 
with the law. Consequently, the appellant exercising the power under Section 
14-B of the Act levied damages @ 25% of the amount payable by the 
respondents. The respondents filed writ petitions against the appellant in 
the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order has held that the 
H appellant is not liable to levy damages on the respondents. Thus, these 
·~ 
REGNL. PROVIDENT FUND COMMR. v. S.D. COLLEGE 
29 
appeals by special leave. 
A 
Section 14-B of the Act reads as under : 
"14-B. Power to recover damages. Where an employer makes 
default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund (the 
Family Fund or the Insurance Fund) or in the transfer of B 
accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-section 
(2) of Section 17 or in the payment of any charges payable 
under any other provision of this Act or of any scheme or 
insurance scheme or under any of the conditions specified under 
Section 17, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner of such 
other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, C 
by notification in the Official G

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