- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against orders and notices dated January 13, 2010 and February 3, 2010 being annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively to the petition praying for an order of setting aside the same. The case made out by the petitioner, inter alia, is this that the petitioner, a registered society, is a English medium school and is a voluntary non-profit, non-government organisation which has been established for the development of poor children in rural areas. In April, 2007 the petitioner applied to the appropriate authority for registering the establishment under the coverage of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Thereafter the respondent no. 1 herein by a Memo, dated April 23, 2007 allotted a code number to the said establishment and the petitioner was directed to pay the provident fund dues for the period beginning from June 16, 1993 up to the date of the issuing of that letter within a period of 15 days. The petitioner states that by a demand draft dated September 1, 2007 the petitioner paid the entire provident fund dues, both arrear and the current which was within the stipulated period as extended by the Provident Fund authorities.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is this that by a communication, dated January 13, 2010, issued by the respondent no. 3 the petitioner was asked to pay simple interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 7,06,278/- and Rs. 12,65,692/- respectively. The petitioner approached the respondents authorities for granting some time to pay the amount of interest and also to waive the payment of damages since the petitioner had paid the requisite dues within the specified date of demand. In response the respondents issued a notice dated February 3, 2010 asking the petitioner to show cause why damages should not be levied and recovered and further directed to deposit the interest dues under Section 7Q within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner thereafter paid Rs. 7,06,278/- towards interest to the respondents authorities.
(3.) The petitioner was thereafter served with a notice of hearing regarding the levy of damages. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities showing cause why the damages should not be levied on the ground that the entire amount was paid within the time. The further case of the petitioner is that it is entitled to get the benefit of the earlier Circular dated June 16, 2004 of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation with regard to the levy of damages for the pre-discovery period. The petitioner invoked the second clause of the Circular by which it was provided that establishments which had paid the provident fund dues within the period prescribed in the coverage notice no damages would be levied but they should be required to deposit simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. According to the petitioner since the establishment had already paid the interest it was not required to make any further payment.;