Point of law: Power of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to impose damages under section 14B is quasi-judicial function.

JUDGMENT :

Respondent in Writ Petition No.29597 of 2015 has filed this appeal challenging impugned order passed in the said Writ Petition dated 21.09.2015.

2. It was the case of Petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition that it is a Public Sector Enterprise under the administrative control of Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises with Government of India having shares with 93.69%. The Respondent was incorporated as “Hindustan Machine Tools Private Limited,” under the-then Companies Act of 1913 and later on, its name was changed as “Hindustan Machine Tools” and subsequently it has been called as “HMT Limited.”

3. The Respondent establishment was covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is an exempted establishment under Section 17 (1)(a) of the said Act. The Respondent has contented in the Writ Petition that during the period 1997 to 2001, the Respondent incurred heavy losses on account of loss incurred by the constituents of the Trust. Therefore, requisite contribution was not paid in time. Thereafter, respondent received sanction from the President of India for payment of Rs.250 Crores dues; and utilizing the portion of the said amount, Respondent had paid dues or arrears of Provident Fund (for short, PF) of its employees.

4. Due to delayed payment of PF, Appellants issued notice to Respondent under Section 14B of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as EPF Act of 1952) for the period from May 1997 to August 2001. The Representative of the Respondent appeared before the concerned authority and put forth their contention and also circumstances leading to delay in depositing of PF amount of its employees. The concerned officer of the Appellant had rejected contention of the Respondent and by order dated 02.01.2004 levied damages of Rs.3,68,30,901/- for the belated remittance of PF contribution. The said order passed by the competent authority was challenged by Respondent before this Court in Writ Petition No.7449 of 2004. This Court heard the said matter and by order dated 27.01.2005, the said Writ Petition was rejected, with the liberty to prefer an appeal before the Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short, EPFAT). The Respondent, thereafter filed an appeal before EPFAT in ATA No.157 (6) of 2004. The EPFAT heard the matter and by order dated 24.06.2010, dismissed the appeal and the said copy is at Annexure –M.

5. Respondent had challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.9883 of 2012 before this Court. This Court heard the matter and quashed the order passed by EPFAT dated 24.06.2010 in ATA No.157(6) 2004 and the matter was remanded to the EPFAT to reconsider the matter and pass suitable orders as per Annexure –N. The EPFAT, once again taken up the matter and heard both the parties and passed the orders dated 11.09.2014 and dismissed the contention of Respondent as per Annexure–P dated 11.09.2014. Consequently, the Appellant issued orders of attachment dated 11.06.2015 vide Annexure–Q and summons dated 06.07.2015 as per Annexure -R to the Writ Petition.

6. Respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of attachment and summons issued against it, filed Writ Petition No.29597 of 2015 before this Court seeking quashing of the orders of the EPFAT dated 11.09.2014 in ATA No.157(6) of 2004 along with the orders of attachment dated 17.06.2015 and summons dated 06.07.2015. The learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29597 of 2015 (LPF) by impugned order dated 21.09.2015 allowed the petition in part and the order at Annexure–P dated 11.09.2014; order of Attachment at Annexure-Q dated 17.06.2015 and summons at Annexure-R dated 06.07.2015 were quashed. The Appellant herein was directed to re-quantify the damages payable, by confining the sa