- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2004 contained at Annexure-4 by which the order imposing damages under Section 14B of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been passed for the period of March, 1982 to January, 1997 to the tune of Rs. 2,37,955/- against the petitioner-school. The petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 30.09.2004 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2 whereby the bankers of this petitioner have been asked to pay the amount of Rs. 2,37,955/- under Section 8F of the Act. According to the petitioner, notice was issued under the provisions 7Q and 14B of the Act dated 09.07.2003 for the payment of interest and damages for belated remittance under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. Petitioner filed his show-cause dated 24.09.2003 contained at Annexure-3 giving break up of the details of the remittance for the certain period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order contained at Annexure-4, petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 2,37,955/- as damages and interest under Section 7Q and 14B of the Act failing which further action will be taken against him for recovering the damages as per law alongwith interest under Section 7Q of the Act. It is submitted on the part of the petitioner that although the respondents have taken into account the objection of the petitioner and granted certain relief of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- which was proposed under notice Annexure-2, but still a sum of Rs. 2,37,955 has been levied as damages. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order does not give any break up of the details of the damages levied upon the petitioner for the period in question and it is not clear from the order impugned that which part of the petitioner's objection has been accepted and which part has been overruled, which is necessary to assail the impugned order before appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Patna High Court in a case of The Jamshedpur General Consumers' Central Co- operative Stores, Ltd. and another Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1979 LAB. I C. 317 in which it is observed that Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order only more so while deciding as to whether for the default in any particular year any penal damages were called for at all and if so to what extent.
(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is submitted on the part of the respondents that a notice was issued on 09.07.2003 containing details of such belated payments in different accounts for which damages were proposed to be levied but the petitioner could not satisfy the authority concerned, thereafter the impugned order has been passed under the relevant provisions of Sections 14B read with para 32A of the scheme under the Act. Moreover, it appears that order is appealable under Section 7-I of the Act 1952 and writ petition should not be entertained. From the submissions of the parties and after carefully going through the records and impugned order, it appears that the authorities in passing the impugned order seems to have taken into account the submission of the establishment by allowing certain amendment in the amount of dues as submitted by the establishment. However, chart enclosed in the impugned order in respect of the different amounts does not contain any break up of amount as damages in the relevant account for the different period for which petitioner's objection was overruled. The petitioner is required to know the ground and reason for which his objection/show cause reply has not been accepted by the competent authority in order to assail the order before the higher forum/appellate authority enabling the aggrieved persons to agitate the order impugned before higher forum. It is also necessary that while passing the order, the order should show application of mind for the higher forum/appellate authority to appreciate the reasons for passing the impugned order. It would be profitable to quote herein a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;