- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2008, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in LPA No. 252 of 2007, choosing not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Learned Single Judge directing the petitioner therein to deposit 50% of the damages imposed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The appellant herein challenged the said order on the ground that there was no provision in the aforesaid Act by which such a direction could have been given by the High Court. While issuing notice on 7th July, 2008 on the special leave petition we had directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount instead of 50% as directed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. It may be indicated that the appeal filed by the appellant is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) On behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been contended that since the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exercised a discretionary jurisdiction, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that although there was no statutory provision similar to Section 7-O of the Act in respect of a challenge to an order under Section 14-B, the intention of the Legislature would have to be taken into consideration and since, provident fund was a first charge, the principles of Section 7-O should also be read into the provision of Section 14-B of the above Act. In support of his submissions learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 1979 AIR(SC) 1803, and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Commission, Hyderabad and Ors., 2002 LabIC 1212. Learned counsel urged that in both the cases what had been sought to be emphasised was the fact that the imposition of damages is indicated to be a warning to the employees not to commit a breach of statutory requirements of Section 6, but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries. It was also observed that there is nothing in the Section to show that the damages imposed must bear relationship to the loss which is caused to the beneficiaries under the Scheme. Learned counsel urged that having regard to the above, the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal directing deposit of 50% of the damages imposed as a condition for stay, as upheld by the High Court, did not warrant any interference.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, having regard to the fact that had it been the intention of the legislature to also include the principles incorporated in Section 7-O of the above Act, the same would have been indicated in the provision relating to filing of appeals against such orders. Section 7-O makes specific reference to orders passed in terms of Section 7-A where it has been laid down that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained unless he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7-A. The proviso to Section 7-O, however, grants the Tribunal discretion for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the said Section. There is no such provision as far as Section 14-B is concerned.;