P.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) Following prayers have been made in this writ petition: To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records : from respondent No. 1 and quashing its order and demand dated October 11, 1988 (Annexure-1); (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the order dated October 11, 1988 against the petitioner or to recover the amount of Rs. 73,890.65 P. from the petitioner under the impugned notice of demand ; and, (iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) Petitioner, Unitech Engineers Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act. In the year 1976, it came 'under the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and liability to pay employers and employees contributions under the Act started from September, 1976 as per order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur. Petitioner committed defaults in payment of employees and employers contributions under the Act for different periods during the periods September, 1976 to June 1979. A notice under Section 14-B of the Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why damages be not imposed upon it under Section 14-B of the Act. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition and supplementary show cause was also filed as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut, after consideration of the submissions, made on behalf of the petitioner and also replies to the show cause, passed order dated October 11, 1988 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By the said order, amount totalling Rs. 73,890.65P. was imposed as damages and demand notice was also served upon the petitioner.
(3.) Impugned order as contained in2 Annexure-1 is being challenged on the ground that all the dues were paid by the petitioner about nine years back and the petitioner was under an impression that by not levying damages earlier the authorities impliedly: waived levy of damages ; that the financial strains and other industrial problems which the petitioner was facing during that period had not been considered and lastly that the power under Section 14-B has been exercised arbitrarily and unreasonably without following principles of natural justice and considering the mitigating circumstances including the delay for each payment.;