B.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) M/s. Hindustan Malleables and Forgins Ltd. have filed this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer that Annexures '1', '5' and '6' appended to the writ application be quashed. Annexure '1' is a notice dated 14-7-1976 regarding - the recovery of damages under S. 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as 'the Provident Funds Act'). In this annexure, the details of defaults are also annexed as well as the proposed damages to be levied. Annexure '5' is the order dated 24-1-1977 passed by Respondent No. 1 in the proceeding under S. 14-B of the Provident Funds Act. By this order, Respondent No. 2 has assessed damages against the petitioner for various defaults, the details of which have been attached to it in the forms of statements, to which I shall refer hereinafter. Annexure '6' is the letter dated 29-1-1977 issued from the office of Respondent No. 1 to the petitioner enclosing a copy of Annexure '5'.
(2.) The relevant facts on which this application is founded, briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company to whom the provisions of the Provident Funds Act apply and in accordance with such provisions the petitioner is required to pay the employees' and the employers' contributions, and the administrative charges under three heads; (1) Provident Fund, (2) Family Pension Scheme and (3) the Administrative charges which are Account Nos. 1, 2 and 10 respectively. By Annexure '1' the petitioner was informed by Respondent No. 1, that they had made various defaults in payment of the above-mentioned contributions. The details of these defaults were also enclosed with the notice and were in the form of three separate statements serial-wise. The first statement related to default of account number 1. The second statement related to default of Account No. 10 and the third statement related to Account No. 2. It is not disputed that the statements attached to the notice are the copies of the statements which have been enclosed by the order which has been passed by Respondent No. 1 by Annexure '5'. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner sent a detailed explanation regarding delays in the payments on different dates, a true copy of such explanation has been appended to and marked Annexure '2'. In pursuance of the notice, Annexure '1', the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 1 on 20-8-1976 and again submitted a written show cause against the proposed damages, a copy of which is Annexure '3'. The matter was partly heard on 28-9-1976 in presence of the Personnel Officer of the petitioner and then the matter was adjourned to 14-9-1976. On 14-9-1976, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and hence again an information was sent to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 30-10-1976, on which date, the representative of the petitioner handed over one affidavit dated 14-9-1976 on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter certain submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner, on consideration of which, the impugned order, Annexure '5' was passed which was followed by a letter Annexure '6'. The grievance of the petitioner against the imposition of the damages are various and I shall consider them a little after.
(3.) There is not much controversy with regard to the facts that I have stated above. However, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, in which it is stated that the damages which have been imposed upon the petitioner are in accordance with law and have been imposed by him after giving the petitioner an appropriate opportunity to make his representation and an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner as well. Before considering the submissions of the parties, it would be relevant to take into account some of the provisions of the Provident Funds Act which have since its inception in 1952, been subjected to various amendments. Section 14-B was inserted for the first time by Act 37 of 1953. Since then this section has again been subjected to amendments. Some important changes were incorporated in it by Act 40 of 1973. This amendment came into force from 1-11-1973. Important changes made in Section 14-B by Act 40 of 1973 are firstly in respect of the competent authority to determine damages for default. Previously the State Government was the competent authority but by this amendment the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such ether officer as may be authorised by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette in this behalf have been made the competent authority. By a notification bearing No. S. O. 548-E dated the 17th October, 1973 published in the Gazette of India, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the State of Bihar is the competent authority. The second important amendment incorporated is that the recovery of damages has been increased from 25% to the amount of the arrears itself, i. e., from 25% to 100%; the third important amendment brought about it is the insertion of a proviso to S. 14-B.;