- (1.) The appellant company made defaults in making payments of the contribution due under the Employee's Provident Funds Act. For the defaults committed in respect of the period February 1963 to February 1966 the Regional- Provident Fund Commissioner assessed damages at Rs. 25,141.35. He served a notice of damand upon the appellant company requiring it to pay the amount within the stated period of time. Aggrieved, on June 28. 1968 the appellant company filed a detailed representation before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. On 12th July. 1968 the appellant company made a detailed representation before the State Government against the assessment of damages. On 19th August, 1968 the State Government passed an order rejecting the representation of the appellant company. Thereupon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner served the notice dated 18th September, 1968 requiring the appellant company to pay the aforesaid sum within 10 days of the receipt of the notice failing which the entire amount of damages was to be recovered from the appellant company as arrears of Land Revenue. Thereupon, the appellant company instituted a writ petition in this Court.
(2.) The petition was supported by the plea that Section 14-B of the Employee's Provident Funds Act which authorises the State Government to assess and realise damages for delay or default in making contributions was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that the impugned notices of demand were invalid because they were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge was np,t impressed by these submissions. He dismissed the writ petition; hence the present appeal.
(3.) In support of the appeal three points were stressed 1. Section 14-B of the Act was violative of Aricle 14 of the Constitution as it conferred unguided discretion; 2. That the principles of natural justice were violated in this case; and 3. That the order of the State Government was bad because it did not disclose any reasons for rejecting the representation of the appellant company.;