- (1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in imposing damages under Section 14 B of the Act mainly on the ground that the levy is unreasonably delayed. Damages have been imposed for delayed deposit of contribution for the period from January, 1965 to September 1979 and this was sought to be done in 1984.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that though Section 14-B had not provided for any limitation to action of imposing damages this must be taken within reasonable time. Opposing this submission learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the Act does not prescribe any limitation it would not be proper to read any restricting period in Section 14-B. Such reading or interpretation according to him is impermissible in law.
(3.) BOTH the learned counsels however placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court Dt. August 29, 1983 in Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. . The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has carefully considered the entire provisions of the Act and observed that it would not be proper to read any provisions of Section 14-B of the Act at the same time it would be permissible to sleep over the rights for decades together. In fact it has been laid down by the Delhi High Court that the powers under Section 14-B though uncircumscribed by the law of limitation are such as must be exercised with due diligence within reasonable period of time. Several decisions have been referred to Hon'ble Judges where-in actions levying damages within a period of 6 years is upheld. However in the present case the action is taken after more than 16 years and according to the observations made by the Division Bench such inordinate delay is not contemplated and such delayed action is unsustainble. I am in respectful agreement with observation of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court holding that proceedings for imposition for damages have to be taken up within reasonable time. What is the reasonable time is determined on the facts of each case, department may be justified in taking action even after 10 years. In the present case no circumstance is placed on record to show as to why the action was so much delayed. Hence it is not possible to sustain the action of the respondent as in this case no explanation of delay and the impugned order is set aside. The petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.;