JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The two petitioners are the public schools run by a public trust established in the year 2003 and has engaged itself into the activity of imparting education. The petitioners initially did not succumb themselves to the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1952”), however, pursuant to the Ministry of Labour and Employment issuing a scheme in the form of a special provision in respect of employees’ Enrollment Campaign, 2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with sub-section 1 of Section 7 of the Act, 1952 by which the existing Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 came to be amended, the petitioners offered voluntarily to cover it’s employees under the provisions of the Act through ORLE portal of the Department under Section 2-A of the Act, 1952. The petitioners on their own submitted their willingness to fulfill the requirements of the scheme and accordingly remitted the contributions in terms of the scheme, somewhere in July-2018 and they were allotted separate code for remittances and other purposes. The date of coverage was declared as 16.06.2003 and the petitioners remitted the contribution/EPF dues including employees and employer’s share for the period from June-2003 to August-2018 in the month of July-2018.

3. The case of the petitioners is, while they subjected themselves to the provisions of the Act, 1952 in the wake of the special scheme, the assurance was given that there would be no levy of any penalty, interest and/or damages etc., against them but surprisingly, according to the petitioners, on 26.11.2019, the respondent initiated inquiry under Section 14-B read with Section 7Q of the Act, 1952 and the notice asked them to show cause as to why damages and interest for the late remittance should not be fastened upon them.

4. The notice issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmednagar addressed to the petitioners state that the petitioners - establishment is covered under the Act, 1952 and in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1952 r/w the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [for the sake of brevity “Scheme of 1952”], the employer-establishment is required to remit the contributions along with the administrative charges within 15 days of the close of every month and under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952 where an employer commits a default in payment of contribution or any charges, the Commissioner is empowered to recovery by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears and the rates of damages as specified and in the Scheme of 1952 and as per it’s amendment. On scrutiny of the record, it was noticed that the petitioners had remitted the amount after the respective due dates and therefore, penalty and the amount of interest of the belated period set out in the notice was liable to be paid by them. The notice afforded an opportunity to remit the amount within the period stipulated and also assigned a date of hearing in person in an inquiry to decide the levy of damages on the basis of records available.

Apart from this, the notice also indicated that the petitioners are liable to pay interest @12% p.a. and the same shall be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice.

The notices were accompanied with the detailed chart in the form of Annexure ‘A’ indicating damages calculation and the chart of the bifurcation of the amount to be remitted under Section 7A and 7B.

5. The petitioners responded to the said notices by submitting their reply and contested the claim raised in the notices. It was pleaded that the petitioners are not governed by the provisions of the Act, 1952 but they offered voluntarily to cover their employees under the provisions of the Act, 1952 and on assurance from the department, that except contributions, no other things like damages, penalty, i