SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Del) 119

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HI-TECH VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Shrivastav, Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 16th January, 2006 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent), made in exercise of powers under Section 14 B of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and imposing total penalty by way of damages of `1,69,913/- on the petitioner. Notice of the petition was issued and the operation of the order stayed. The said interim order has continued to remain in force. The pleadings have been completed. The counsels have been heard.

2. Section 14 B empowers the Provident Fund Commissioner, when an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund, to recover from such employer by way of penalty, such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the Scheme.

3. The respondent, being of the view that the petitioner had failed to remit the provident fund and allied dues for the period from the date of coverage to March, 2003 within the stipulated time, issued a notice dated 24th September, 2003 to the petitioner to show cause as to why damages as envisaged under Section 14 B be not recovered by way of penalty from the petitioner. The impugned



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top