ST. VINCENT ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, is running an unaided Higher Secondary School under the State syllabus. The petitioner is also an employer under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the petitioner received Ext. P1 order, directing to pay damages for the delayed payment for the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004, totalling to a sum of Rs. 1,34,093/ -. Similarly, the petitioner received Ext. P2 order, which was passed under Sec. 7Q of the Act, directing him to pay interest for the delayed payment for the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004, totalling to a sum of Rs. 73,613/ -. The petitioner contends that there was no willful delay, on the part of the petitioner in remitting employees' contribution. There was a dispute with regard to the salaries of the employees and the matter was pending before this Court, in O.P. No. 9342/1999, which culminated in Ext. P3 judgment. Challenging Ext. P3 judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 582/2002, which culminated in Ext. P4 judgment. Thereafter, the employees of the petitioner preferred Contempt Case No. 4043/2003, which was closed by Ext. P5 judgment.

(2.) In short, according to the petitioner, there was a bona fide dispute, as regards the quantum of salary to be paid to the employees of the petitioner. Exts. P3 to P5, clearly shows that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioner, for remitting the contribution amount. The petitioner institution has been making provident fund contributions, since 1998 regularly, including the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004 and the same is evidenced, by Exts. P6 to P6(6), as such the delay alleged by the 1st respondent is only in respect of the enhanced salary, which was paid subsequently, in the year 2004, after the disposal of Ext. P5 Contempt Case. It is also admitted that the petitioner institution received Ext. P7 notice, on 17.05.2004 and in response to Ext. P7, the petitioner paid the amount quantified in Ext. P7 on 07.07.2004. Thus, there was no inordinate or willful delay, in remitting the contribution payable to the arrear of salary, as the arrear of salary, itself was paid, after the disposal of Ext. P5 Contempt of Court Case, on 12.03.2004. But, neither the 1st respondent nor the 3rd respondent has considered the circumstances under which the short delay was caused, in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary, to the employees.

(3.) Aggrieved by Exts. P1 and P2 orders, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 36480 of 2008, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals Exts. P10 and P11, before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent also has not considered the question, whether there was any willful default on the part of the petitioner, causing the delay, in remitting the employees' contribution payable for the arrear of salary. The 3rd respondent passed Exts. P12 and P13 orders, without application of mind, by making arithmetical calculation only. It is with this averments, this writ petition is filed, challenging Exts. P1 and P2 orders, passed by the 1st respondent and Exts. P12 and P13 orders passed by the 3rd respondent.