The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) to file the writ application and the justification for the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act.

Hemant Gupta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order dated 9th of December, 2014 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11001 of 2010 filed by the respondent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (for short “the Commissioner”).

3. The Commissioner has sought quashing of an order dated 8th of August, 2008 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in the writ petition whereby, the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C & R), Bihar, Patna on 12th of October, 2004 was quashed awarding damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). The learned Tribunal set aside the imposition of damages on the ground that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant as the appellant was availing legal remedies available to it.

4. Initially the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice under Section 7A of the Act for assessment of Provident Fund dues for the period from June, 1977 onwards. Such proceedings were challenged by the appellant before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988. The writ application was dismissed on 27th of July, 1989 holding that the provisions of the Act are applicable in respect of Home Workers engaged in rolling of bidis of the appellant establishment through contractors. Appellant challenged the order passed by this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court when S.L.P. No. 10538 of 1989 was filed by it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the assessment order till the identification of the workers is made but in the meantime, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner determined the amount due from the appellant as Rs. 66,84,930.50/- towards employers and employees contribution from July, 1977 to August, 1986. The appellant was further called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 28,72,383.85/-. The appellant challenged both the demands through separate writ applications before this Court i.e. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1114 and 1115 of 1990. The writ applications filed by the appellant before this court were dismissed on 19th of August, 1992 and Rs. 46,90,051/- was realized out of the total demand raised by the Provident Fund Commissioner.

5. The Special Leave Petition earlier filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was disposed of with observation that the question involved could be settled by the High Court in the proceedings pending before it, including the question as to who are the employees under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Special Leave Petition against the order passed by this Court on 19th of August, 1992 was dismissed on 3rd of May, 1993 when the following order was passed.

“The SLPs are dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to collect the names of Bidi workers, who work for them through their contractors and furnish the names of all the workers to the Provident Fund Commissioner. The Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter will verify these names and calculate the liability of the petitioner. On the basis of such verification, if any excess amount is found due from the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will recover such amount from the petitioner. On the other hand, if any amount is found due to the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will refund the same. The petitioner to furnish the name of the workers within six months from today.”

6. Thereafter, the appellant furnished the particulars of Home Workers said to be engaged by the contractors for final determination of its liability under Section 7A of the Act. The appellant made a request for waiver of payment of employees contribution for the period October, 1985 to March, 1993 on the ground that he had not been able to collect the same. Such claim was disallowed. The total liability was assessed at Rs. 1,45,25,848/- out of which the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 6,11,716/-. Certificate f