AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. LD Chowdhury, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The Petitioner is an Educational Institution imparting Education up to class XII affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary
Education, New Delhi and situated at ""Vidya Niketan"" Boyce Road, Shillong-793001 run by a Charitable Trust since the year 1975.
Applicability of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was challenged by one Educational Institute
of North East Region before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP which was decided on 27-03-1996, upholding the applicability of
the Act ibid in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District and consequently the Respondents 1st (first) time on 16-04-1997 inspected the
school premises of the petitioner and made liable the School for payment of EPF under the EPF & MP Act 1952 retrospectively
w.e.f. from 01-04-1982.
The humble Petitioner deposited the EPF contribution of both Employees'' and Employers'' along with interest, despite the fact that
the beneficiary employees were not given the benefit for the contribution made by the Petitioner school. The respondents issued
demand for payment of interest and damages under section 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act 1952 vide letter dated 13-03-2003
for payment of Rs. 2046/- as interest and Rs. 1,38,089/- as damages.
On 15-10-2003, the Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned Order under Section 14B of the Act ibid imposing the damages of
Rs.1,38,089/-. Being highly aggrieved with the impugned order the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.3 on 17-11-
2003 for waiver of the damages but he was not given any opportunity to be heard by the Respondents and he was served the
impugned notice of demand on 30-04-2004 by the Recovery Officer/ Respondent No.5. Consequently, the humble Petitioner filed a
Title Suit before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained a stay on the impugned demand of
Rs.1,38,089/-. Upon pointing out that the Court below has no jurisdiction over the Act ibid, the humble Petitioner had to withdraw
the suit with liberty to file the writ petition being the court of appropriate jurisdiction and hence this Writ Petition filed for grant of relief
as prayed for.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SP Sharma submits that they could not deposit the demand for damages with the respondents as the
demand was not made by the respondents and prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to deposit 25% of the damages. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that petitioner had already deposited 50% of the damages and he also relied on the judgment passed in the case of Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner versus S.D.College, Hoshairpur decided on 28th Oct 1996 (1997 AIR (SC) 3645) and the case of ""Halwasia
Vidya Vihar (Sr. Sec. School) Haryana versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner decided in 27-Mar-2006 in Civil Appeal No.3848 of
2000."" 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. LD Chowdhury submits that the respondents had determined the damages
under Para 32A of ""The Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952"" as per the mandate of Section 14B of the said
act.
While going through the judgments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that those judgments are passed on different
background and backdrop, so those judgments may not be exactly applicable in this instant case in hand. Therefore, I find that the respondents is
at liberty to levy the damages under Para 32A read with Section 14B referred above as this fund is meant for the teachers as well as the welfare
legislation, so deviation of the very act or any kind of exemption may not meet the ends of justice.
With this observation and direction, the petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.