BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-8-28
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 29,1983

BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVINGMILLS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF PUNJAB V. AMIN CHAND AND SONS [REFERRED]
CHAMPALAL BHIANI V. CIT [REFERRED]
M/S. HINDUSTAN MALLEABLES AND FORGINS LTD V. R.P.F.C. [REFERRED ALBERT V. INVESTMENT (1867) 3 Q.B.D. 123. (8) M/S. LAJPAT POTTERIES(P) LTD. V. R.P.F.C.,C.W]
ATLANTIC ENGG. SERVICES V. UOI [REFERRED]
DIVISIONAL ENGINEER A.P.S.E. BOARD V. R.P.F.C.,HYDERABAD [REFERRED]
R.P.F.C.,U.P. V. ALLAHABAD CANNING CO. [REFERRED]
ORGANO CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES V. UOI [REFERRED]
CALICUT MODEM SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. V. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [REFERRED]
M/S. INTERNATIONAL ELECTRICALS,FARIDKOT V. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [REFERRED]
T.C.M. WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD. V. R. P. F. C. [REFERRED]
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OFPUNJAB AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
THE R.P.F.C.,TRIVANDRUM AND ETC. V. BHARAT PLYWOOD AND TIMBER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
M/S. UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBHOGTA THOK BHANDAR LTD.,UDAIPUR V. THE UOI AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
M/S. AMIN CHAND'S V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN V. STATE OF BOM [REFERRED]
MATAJOG DOBEY NAND RAM AGARWALA VS. H C BHARI:H C BHARI [REFERRED STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V. AMIN CHAND AND SONS; 37 F.J.R. 92(99). (33).]
THOMAS DANA LEO ROY FREY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
BOMBAY GAS CO LIMITED VS. GOPAL BHIVA [REFERRED]
JALAN TRADING CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MILL MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED JAIN BROS V. UOI,77 ITR 107.]
CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO LIMITED BARAREE COLLIERY DHANBAD VS. RAMESHWAR [REFERRED]
SWASTIK OIL MILLS LIMITED VS. H B MUNSHI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED]
BALLABHADAS MATHURDAS LAKHANI VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MALKAPUR [REFERRED]
HARI SINGH BHARTIYA HOTEL VS. MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. PARAMESWARAN MATCH WORKS:GANDHIJI COTTAGE MATCH WORKS [REFERRED LOUISVILLE GAS CO. V. ALABAMA POWERCO.,240 US 30.]
PUNJAB CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. R S BHATIA DEAD [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND DHANBAD VS. J P LALLA AND SONS [REFERRED]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SHALINI SONI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [REFERRED]
D D JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAM KISHAN BALDEO PRASAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED]
BISHESHWAR LAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED]
NARAYANAPPA SETTY K P AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED]
MADRAS-BANGALORE TRANSPORT COMPANY VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

PROCESS SYNDICATE VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEE [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-127] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN LAL VS. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-313] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SACHAR, J. - (1.)This group of petitions were heard together. All of them are directed against the respective orders of Respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called Act). Many of the points raised are common and will stand decided in all the petitions by the decision given in one of the petition. We shall however deal with each petition separately, also.
(2.)Section 5 of 1952 Act empowers the Central Government to frame a scheme to be called Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of Provident Funds under the Act, . . . and there shall be established, after the framing of a scheme a Fund. Section 6 of the 1952 Act provides for payment of contributions by the employer to the Fund of six and a quarter percent of the basic wages payable to the employee and employee's contribution, which shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him. Section 2(h) of the Act defines "Fund" to mean the Provident Fund established under a Scheme.
(3.)Employee's Provident Fund Scheme 1952 was published on 2nd September, 1952. Para 30 of the Scheme provides that the employer shall in the first instance pay both the contributions payable by himself, referred to as employer's contribution and also on behalf of the member employed by him the contribution payable by such member. Para 32 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of the Scheme or any law for the time being in force, the amount of a member's contribution paid by the the employer shall be recoverable by means of deduction from the wages of the member, and not otherwise. Para 32 (3) provides that any sum deducted by an employer from the wages of an employee under this Scheme shall be deemed to have been entrusted to him for the purpose of paying the contribution in respect of which it was deducted.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.