• Levy of damages under section 14B - Delay spread over a period of twenty two years from 1966 to 1987 - Not even once the payment was made in time during all these years - Prayer of condonation of delay in view of regularity of payment at the rate of 25% p.a. for the delayed payment - Writ petition challenged that imposition of damages by respondent No.1 is colourable and mala fide exercise of powers - Whether maintainable?
No.
No.
Satish Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. (through its Executive Director) Aurangabad v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Maharashtra and Goa, Bombay
• Factors to be taken into consideration - While imposing penalty under section 14B. Only those factors which have been mentioned in the order will be taken into consideration.
Cannanore Shop v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, 1992 LIC 2477: (1992) 8 CLR 305: 1995 111 LLJ (Supp) 134: 1992 LLR 667: 1992(65) FLR 714 (Ker HC).
• Procedure for imposing of damages - The authority must take note of several relevant circumstances.
State of Gujarat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad, 1993 LLR 210 (Guj HC).
• Levy of damages under section 14B of the Act - Order must be speaking order since it is quasi-judicial order - While imposing damages, the Commissioner shall give reasons in support of his order.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Taylor Instrument Company (India) Ltd., 1993 LLR 334 (P&H HC).
• Levy of damages under - In respect of defaults committed in deposit of contributions - For the periods between May 1974 and May 1982 - Notice to show cause issued in December 1984 - Whether section 14B provides any limitation for taking action against the defaulters - Whether delay in issuing notice vitiates the proceedings - Held, No.
Mathur Alloy Steels Pot. Ltd. v. The Union of India
• Limitation - Levy of damages after 3 years from the date of deposit of contribution - Delay - If amounts to waiver of right to impose damages? No.
Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1993 LLR 987: 1993(82) FJR 574 (HP HC).
• Levy of damages - For not making deposit of dues within time for the period from 1.1.75 to 26.2.1976 - Factory incorporated on September 24, 1970 and commenced production in June/July 1971 - Order of levy of damages during infancy period - If liable to be vitiated? Yes.
Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1994 LIC 1286: 1993 LLR 987: 1993(82) FJR 574 (HP HC).
• High Court will not interfere in levying of damages by the PF Authorities if an employer has failed to deposit the contributions.
New Precision (India ) Ltd v, The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Indore
• Levy of damages for late payment of EPF's Contribution can be mitigated to nil if the same was due to strike, etc., in the factory.
Vegetable Vitamins Foods Company Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra & Goa, (1995) 70 FLR 1012: (1995) 1 LLJ 1145: (1995) 1 LLN 242: 1995 LLR 244: 1994-II CLR 1062 (Bom HC).
• No damages can be levied if no reason is given for refusal to grant exemption to an establishment under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act.
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. v. Union of India
• Inordinate delay by EPF authorities to levy damages and penalty for late payment will not be sustainable.
Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, (1995) 1 LLJ 936: 1995 LLR 978 (Ori HC).
• While levying damages for late payment of EPF's contribution, the authority should take into consideration various factors.
Popular Saw Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1995 LIC 2624: (1996) 1 LLJ 201: 1996 LLR 357 (Gau HC).
• Power to recover damages for - Default of employer in payment of contribution to the funds - Discretion with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner only to reduce percentage of damages - He has no power to waive penalty altogether Respondent had no justification to deposit and keep on depositing the amount in the University account after the matter had been decided by Supreme Court in writ petition in February 1988 - Mere fact that University had given permission to redeposit amount with appellant did not enable respondent to take shelter for non-deposit of amount in the Fund - No justification for waiver of penalty of 25% imposed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S.D. College
• Plea of delay of 14 years in recovering damages for late payment of EPF contributions will not be sustainable.
Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India
• No limitation is prescribed for recovery of EPF contributions but an employer must be given opportunity before levying of damages.
• Mere financial crunch will not be sufficient for waiving penal damages for delay in deposit of EPF contributions.
Esskay Machinery (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, (1998) LIC 2258: (1998) 68 FLR 619: 1998 LLR 925 (Ori HC).
• While imposing damages the Authority under EPF and MP Act has to perform his duty promptly and cannot keep quiet for number of years at its sweet will and at pleasure wake up to issue show cause notice levying penalty against the employer, there must be determination of loss sustained by the department before levying penalty.
Snap Tap Machine Accessories India
• Failure to pay EPF contribution due to non-allotment of Code numbers by Authorities when alternative mode of payments are available would not absolve the employer from payment of contribution in time and the employer will be liable to pay damages.
Ujwal Transport Agency, Madras v. Union of India
• Delay in issuing of show cause notice for levy of damages for delaying EPF contributions will not be a ground for waiver.
Regio1Ull Provident Fund Commissioner v. Snap Tap Machine Accessories (India
• Levy of damages for late payment of EPF contributions cannot be faulted with when justified reasons have been given in the order.
Process Syndicate v. Central Board of Trustee, (2002) 99 DLT 625: (2002) III CLR 821: (2002) 95 FLR 981: (2002) III LLJ 856: 2002 LLR 1088 (Del HC).
• When there is delay in payment of EPF contributions for no apparent fault, the damages should not be penal.
Shanti Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2002) 101 FJR 997: (2003) 1 CLR 228: (2003) 2 LLN 850: 2003 LLR 256: 2003-1 LLJ 467 (Mad HC).
• Levy and recovery of damages by attaching of unit with certain conditions for belated deposit of EPF contribution without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying and recovery of damages by the Recovery Officer will not be in exercise of powers as vested and also not with an open mind.
Puthiyara Tile Works v. Union of India
• Levy of damages for delayed payment of EPF contributions, by the concerned Authorities, will be quashed if the Authorities have failed to apply their mind to the actual fact that the employer has timely deposited in the nationalized bank.
Karnla Spinning Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad
• Evan if the provident fund department failed to explain the delay while levying damages for the late payment of contribution, the employer cannot escape the liability from paying damages.
South Kanara Home Industries Kungibettu v. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 2006 LLR (SN) 537 (Karn HC).
• Recovery of damages for payment of deficit amount of EPF contributions will not be sustainable when the employer paid the amount to the consultant who did not deposit full amount.
Saurashtra Solvent Extraction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 644 (Guj HC).
• Damages for late deposit of provident funds contributions can't be imposed when, despite requests, code number was not allotted.
Poona Shims Pvt. Ltd. v. B.P. Ramaiah, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2007 LLR 488 (Bom HC).
• Levy of damages for delayed payment of P.P. contributions at uniform rate of 25% will not be legal.
M/s. Systems & Stamping v. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 2008 LLR 485 (Del HC).
• Levy of damages for late payment of provident fund contributions without holding enquiry under section 7 A is liable to be quashed.