- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 16.11.2006 issued by the respondent No. 2, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby he has assessed the damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2, wherein an application for review on behalf of the petitioner against the order passed under Section 14B has been rejected stating that the same cannot be reopened. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2006 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2 under Section 8F of the Act, whereby the bankers of the petitioner have been directed to attach the amount demanded and remit it to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Establishment, in question, was earlier in the name of the father of the petitioner and on his death the Adityapur Industrial Area Authority allowed the transfer of the name of the Firm in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 27.1.2006. It is further submitted that earlier vide order dated 26.5.2006, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had raised a demand for payment of interest and damages for the belated payment under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act of 1952. However, it is submitted that the petitioner protested against the said demand as it was passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-establishment whereafter notices were again issued vide Annexure-6 dated 18.9.2006 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the orders under Section 14B for payment of damages be not passed against it for having committed default in payment of the provident fund. It is submitted that the petitioner sought time on 9.10.2006 giving reasons of his ill health and thereafter the case was adjourned. Another request was made on 16.10.2006 vide Annexure-8, wherein it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that R.P.F.C was informed that the name of the petitioner's establishment has been subsequently transferred in the name of the present petitioner and also the outstanding dues levied for certain payment of interest have been made in lieu of the demand raised earlier, which should be adjusted against the outstanding dues. It appears from a perusal of the said letter contained at Annexure-8 dated 16.10.2006 that petitioner sought exemption from payment of Rs. 50,621 as unpaid interest under Section 7Q of the Act It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner, if no such exemption is granted the petitioner is liable to pay under any circumstances and for that four installments for payment of the same be granted. It is submitted that without allowing further time the order contained at Annexure-9 has been passed by the Respondents R.P.F.C, wherein the aforesaid demand under the provisions of Section 14B have been assessed as penal damage of Rs. 1,85,713 and penal interest of Rs. 50,621.00 under Section 7Q and the Establishment have been directed to pay the said amount within 15 days on receipt of this order, failing which steps for recovery under the relevant provisions of the Act could be undertaken.
(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order, had moved this Court and also consequential orders, by which the bankers of the petitioner have been asked to attach the amount and remit the amount due as per the impugned order in favour of the Respondents' Organization.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was originally assessed under the aforesaid Act since 1982 and has been regular defaulter. It is further submitted that the order impugned has been passed after giving opportunity as would appear from the averments and the documents annexed on the part of the petitioner himself. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the order passed under Section 14B should be reviewed under Section 7B of the Act is misconceived as the powers under section 7B is available against the orders passed under Section 7A of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy where pre-deposit is required to be made, but in stead of availing the same the petitioner had moved this Court in writ jurisdiction and as such there is no flaw in the decision making process on the part of the E.P.F.O. Further the impugned order also does not suffer on account of lack of following the principle of natural justice, as the petitioner kept on asking for time in relation to the assessment of damages under section 14B, obviously since the original demand had also not been deposited in time leading to initiation of proceeding for assessment of damages and interest under sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. Moreover, it is submitted that the impugned order has taken into account the contention of the petitioner relating to financial difficulties and clearly stated that these are no mitigating circumstances to rescue the petitioner's establishment from statutory liability arising under the Act as the Act itself is a beneficial piece of legislation intending to ameliorate the conditions of the deprived section of the society being the workmen covered under the Act. It is submitted that the demands have been made for long and because of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the original amount under damages and interest has been levied in terms of the Act.;