- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 12. 9. 1984 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (here in after referred to as the Respondent No. 2) as well as the requisition dated 15. 1 1. 1984 issued by Collector (PDR, Jaipur) Respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Private Ltd. Company and has its establishment in Rajasthan which is covered by the provisions of Employees, Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act' ). According to the petitioner due to various drastic power cuts, which were upto 100% at times, since December 19, 1979, the Company's production was adversely affected. Workmen of the petitioner-company started slow down in the factory from 13. 3. 1981 with a view to pressurise the management to concede to their demands. Since the management refused to accept their demands, the workmen of the company struck work from 15. 7. 1981. Due to power cut and strike, financial position of the company deteriorated and the customers of the company developed alternative source of supply. The overdrafts given to the company were also suspended by the financial institutions since closure w. e. f. 24. 12. 1981. The company informed to Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 27. 6. 1983 about the closure on account of illegal strike of the workmen, the company requested cancellation of its registration under '1952 Act'. The company had delayed making the payments of certain dues under the Act of 1952 for the period of 1981-82. However, all the arrears were cleared in the year 1982. Despite this Respondent No. 2 initiated action against the petitioner-company under Section 14-B of 1952 Act'. The petitioner was given hearing by Respondent No. 2 on 19. 6. 1984. On that day a written representation was made by the petitioner company. Thereafter on 12. 9. 1984 Respondent No. 2 passed order under Section 14-B and ordered the recovery of damages at the rate of 100% of the amount on account of delay in making payments of dues under '1952 Act'. Thereafter Respondent No. 2 sent a requisition dt. 15. 11. 1984 to the Collector (PDR) for recovery of various sums from the petitioner-company.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 12. 9. 1984 and also the letter of recovery dated 15. 11. 1984, on the ground that the Respondent No. 2 passed the order for payment of damages in arbitrary manner, without proper application of mind to the circumstances of the case. The petitioner had made prayer for imposing of minimum amount of damages permissaible under the Act but the Respondent No. 2 did not consider the representation of the petitioner in a proper perspective. Power under Section 14-B cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The petitioner has also relied upon Annexure-2 which contains a decision of the Employees, Provident Fund Review Committee. This decision has been approved by the Government of India. According to the petitioner in view of this decision the damages only upto extent of 25% per annum could have been levied against the petitioner.;