- (1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6452 of 2010 whereby the writ petition preferred by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Appellant, has been dismissed and the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in appeal being A.T.A. No. 597(3) 2003 dated 09.08.2010 has been upheld. The Appellate Authority interfered in the order passed by the Assessing Officer/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi dated 22.05.2003 and observed that default committed by the respondent company is not beyond one month and this fact cannot be disputed and then observed that there is delay of less than one month in depositing the amount under various heads and ultimately ordered that E.P.F. Authority may assess the dues @ 17% inclusive of interest.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a notice was issued to the respondent alleging that the respondent did not deposit the various amounts with the authority constituted under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and, therefore, is liable to pay the damages, obviously, under Clause 32A of the Scheme of 1952. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that along with the notice, a statement of delayed payment was also enclosed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, by impugned order dated 22.05.2003, declared that total Rs. 3,85,26,664.00 is the calculated amount of the penalties under Section 14-B and under Section 17-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the said amount was directed to be paid by the respondent within 15 days.
(3.) The respondent M/s. MECON preferred appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the said Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that it is a case of delay of less than one month in payment of certain dues by the appellant and, therefore, the levy of the damages can be @ 17% inclusive of interest.;