The orders imposing damages under the EPF Act must be reasoned and based on factual findings, ensuring principles of natural justice are upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the attachment order dated 9^th/17^th February, 2015 issued to the respondent bank, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur in respect of order dated 21^st February, 2015 under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act for the period from 08/1995 to 07/2008, amounting in total Rs.58,16,767/- and an order no. WB /DGP /009528 /000 /Enf501/Damages /5915 /18802 dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office Durgapur thereby levying damages and charging interest for the period from 07/2011 to 08/2011 totally Rs. 79,337/-.

2. The petitioner’s case in the writ application is that two separate proceedings were simultaneously initiated by the respondent no. 2 and simultaneously decided by the respondent no. 1 levying damages and charging interest under Section 14B and Section 7Q of the said Act, for the periods from 08/1995 to 07/2008 and from 07/2011 to 08/2011.

3. On 6^th February, 2015, the petitioner received copies of two orders issued by the Respondent no. 1, both dated 21^st January, 2015, levying damages and interests as under:-

a) WB/DGP/009528/000/ Enf501/ Damages/5915/18802 for the period from 07/2011 to 08/2011 - damages u/s 14B Rs. 23,334/ and interest u/s 7Q Rs. 56,003/- totaling Rs. 79,337/-.

b) WB /DGP /009528 /000 /Enf501 /Damages /5914 /18803 for the period from 08/1995 to 07/2008 damages u/s 14B Rs.4,85,769/- and interest u/s 7Q Rs. 3,30,998/- totalling Rs. 58,16,767/-.

4. It is stated that the said notices for the said proceedings were predetermined and had already returned a conclusion as regards the alleged dues without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and were also never served with sufficient time for the petitioner to respond.

5. Vide notice no. WB/ DGP/ 009528/000/Enf501/ Damages /1711 dated 19th/20th March, 2014 for the period 07/2011 to 08/2011, damages of Rs. 23,334/- and interest of Rs. 56,003/- were demanded from the petitioner, alleging delayed remissions of EPS contributions, EDLI contributions and EDLI administration/inspection charges as per dates of challans issued by the Bank of the respondent no. 2, i.e. State Bank of India. However, the said remissions had been made by the petitioner within the permitted time (i.e. fifteenth of next month and five days grace period) in as much as not only cheques were issued by the petitioner and paid into the Bank A/c of the respondent no. 2 within the due dates, but the cheques were also realized and debited from the petitioner’s Bank A/c in United Bank of India within due dates; and the delay in issuing challans was only on the part of State Bank of India-the Bank of the respondent no. 2 in failing to timely credit the proceeds of the realized cheques into the Bank A/c of the respondent no. 2.

6. Vide notice no. WB/DGP/009528/000/Enf501/Damages/1712/21557 dated 19^th/20^th March, 2014 for the period 08/1995 to 07/2008, damages of Rs.34,85,769/- and interest of Rs.23,30,998/- were demanded from the petitioner, alleging delayed remissions of PF contributions, and other delayed payments. However, the petitioner was not liable to pay the same because: (i) Subsequently portion of the demanded amount was in respect of delay in remissions of EPS contributions for the period from 08/1995, commencement of Scheme till the earlier assessment order under Sec. 7A issued in October, 2014, but the delay during that period had occurred due to stay orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court in the writ petition filed by employees’ unions challenging the validity of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, and after the matter was finally decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in November, 2003, necessary remissions were made by the petitioner between February to April, 2004, and deficit amount of remissions and interest for entire period of delay from August 1995 onwards as assessed by the respondent no. 2 in October, 2004 vide