- (1.) The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter the 'Act' was enacted to serve beneficient purpose and it does constitute a welfare measure, as it seeks to create a fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and some establishments to meet pressing demands so also to provide pensions after the employees have ceased to be in service. So the Act has to be construed in such a way, in case two views be possible, which advances the object. This has been the outlook of the Court for over three decades by now, as the same was first focussed in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Company, 1962 (Supp) 3 SCR 815 : (AIR 1962 SC 1536), and was reiterated in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works, 1965 (2) SCR 72 : (AIR 1965 SC 1076).
(2.) The purpose of the aforesaid prologue is to find out as to when power under Section 14-B of the Act should be allowed to be used and whether it would be in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act if delay in invoking the power is allowed to stand in the way. As in the present case we are concerned with the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra, (the Commissioner), levying damages on the respondent for default in the payment of the contribution in exercise of power under Section 14-B, let it be noted what this Court said about this section in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, 1980 (1) SCR 41: (AIR 1979 SC 1803). In that case this Court was called upon to decide the constitutionally of Sec. 14-B, which was challenged as violative of Article 14 having conferred unguided power. It rejected the contention. It also spelt out the purpose of imposition of damages, stating that the same was meant to penalise defaulting employer, as also to provide reparation for the amount of loss suffered by the employees. It was pointed out that it is not only a warning to employers in general not to commit a breach of the statutory requirements, but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries i.e. to recompense the employees for the loss sustained by them.
(3.) There is no dispute in the present case that the respondent had defaulted in depositing the contributions both its own and as well as of the employees in time. The Commissioner, after applying his mind to the period of delay as well as to the quantum, imposed a sum of Rs.52,034.80 as damages. The order of the Commissioner came to be challenged before the Bombay High Court by the respondent who has set aside the order solely on the ground that the proceeding was bad because of unreasonable delay in initiating the same. The Court pointed out that though Section 14-B has not laid down any period of limitation, the power has to be exercised within reasonable time. As the default related to period from July 68 to October 77, relating to which proceedings came to be initiated in 1985, the High Court regarded the delay as unreasonable, and so, fatal. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has preferred this appeal with the aid of Article 136 of the Constitution.;