- (1.) The petitioners challenge the order dated 1st March, 1999 passed by the first respondent imposing damages in exercise of power purportedly conferred by section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as the Act) as well as the notice of demand dated 28th February, 2000 issued by the third respondent.
(2.) Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court to a judgment dated 13th April, 2006 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Hooghly Mills Company Limited & Anr. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissoner & Anr., 2006(3) CHN 749, and submitted on the basis thereof that the Provident Fund authorities cannot, under section 14B of the Act, recover damages for delayed payment of contribution in Trust Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees of an exempted establishment. The first petitioner being an establishment enjoying exemption, he contended that the first respondent committed jurisdictional error in imposing damages. He has next placed the unreported Division Bench decision of this Court dated 26th September, 2008 passed in M.A.T. No. 1944 of 2006 whereby the judgement dated 13th April, 2006 referred to above has been upheld.
(3.) Accordingly, it was submitted that since the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court, the impugned order as well as the impugned notice of demand may be set aside and the bank guarantee which the petitioner offered in terms of the initial order passed by this Court while entertaining the writ petition may be allowed to be withdrawn.;