B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) Whether the principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the State of U.P. before passing an order for imposing damages or penalty on the petitioners, the employers for their failure, either to make contribution towards provident fund of the workmen or to transfer the amount deposited by the workmen towards the provident fund accounts (known as Employees' Provident Funds) under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'Act'), is the short question for our determination in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the prayer to quash the orders dated September 28, 1968, January 7, 1970 and January 20, 1971 (Annexures 4, 5 and 6 to the amendment application) by issuing writ of certiorari. These orders have been passed under Section 14-B of the Act.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are Employers and there are 49 workmen on the roll of the petitioners. All workmen make contribution from their pay, every month, towards the provident fund account. Similar amount is to be contributed by the employers. It transpired that the employers failed to either make the contributions or to transfer the amount deposited by the workmen. Consequently, the State Government passed the impugned orders imposing damages and penalty etc. and the same was sought to be recovered by issuing a recovery certificate against the petitioners. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Shri Kameshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the provisions of Section 14-B, before the amendment made by Act 40 of 1973 (which came into force on November 1, 1973) were applicable. But there was no proviso added to Section 14-B at that time requiring the employers to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matters of imposing either damages or the penalty etc. But nevertheless the principles of natural justice ought to be complied with and the impugned orders were passed by the State Government without giving any opportunity of hearing or without informing the petitioners of serving them notices as to why not the damages or the penalty may be imposed upon them. Under Section 7-A of the Act, the procedure is for the determination of monies due from the employers and the expression 'monies due from the employers' is so comprehensive that it includes even imposition of damages or penalty etc. and the recovery of the same. The provisions under Section 7-A (3) of the Act are that no order determining the amount due from the employer would be made unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. The provision was contained under the Act, as it was prior to the amendment introduced on November 1, 1973, by Act 40 of 1973. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 7-A affording a: reasonable opportunity for hearing was a must. Consequently, in any case, the impugned orders, imposing damages and penalty and recovery of the same could not have been made without complying with the principles of natural justice. This was also contended that apart from the statutory provisions of Seciton 7-A the general principles of natural justice were applicable and the opportunity of hearing was a must before passing of impugned orders. The reliance was placed on (1) Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad and Ors. v. J.P. Lalla and Sons (1976-II-LLJ-91)(SC), (2) Shyam Glass Works v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1979 Lab IC 27 (All-DB), (3) Madras Bangalore Transport Co. v. Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Madras 1970 Lab IC 96.;