M. P. THAKKAR, R. C. MANKAD, J.

( 1 ) THE legality and validity of an order as per Annexure A dated 31/03/1980 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner Gujarat State ordering payment of damages for delayed pay- ment of amount of Provident Fund/family Pension Fund/deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and administrative charges for the period between March 197 3/08/1977 has been challenged by way of the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it discloses errors apparent on the face of the record. The challenge is made by the Arvind Mills Ltd. which acquired the assets and liabilities of an undertaking known as The Ahmedabad Laxmi Cotton Mills Com- pany Ltd. which was under liquidation pursuant to the sanction accorded by the High Court in Company Petitions Nos. 87 and 88 of 1978 to the proposed Scheme of amalgamation compromise and arrangement. Under the said scheme as per sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 16 a provision was made that the Arvind Mills Ltd. the petitioner herein shall pay all the arrears due to the Provident Fund Commissioner within one month of the sanction of the scheme. It was also agreed by the petitioner Company that the damages payable to the Provident Fund Commissioner as may be determined by him in respect of the defaults shall be payable by the petitioner-Company. The relevant portion extracted from the Scheme reads as under: arvind shall also pay Provident Fund. E. S. I. and other dues if any for the period after 12/08/1977 and remaining unpaid upto the date of restart of the mills. Besides ARVIND shall pay such sum as may be determined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under sec. 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 for default in payment of the Provident Fund and other dues of LAXMI COTTON by due date. It appears that the arrears of Provident Fund were to the tune of Rs. 4 47 41 per statement at Annexure A annexed to the petition. The arrears were in respect of the period from November 1975 till August 1977 In the background of these facts after hearing the petitioner Company the impugned order as per Annexure A was passed whereby the liability of the petitioner-Company was determined at Rs. 4 40 541 per Appendix D to Annexure A. There were in all 47 defaults. In respect of 9 instances payment was not made at all. In respect of the remaining 38 payment was made after delay as mentioned in Appendix D to ann- exure A. In the 9 instances of total non-payment payments were made by the petitioner Company in June 1979 after the Scheme was sanctioned. In respect of 6 out of these instances damages were levied at 100%. In respect of the remaining 3 damages were levied at 32%. In respect of the 33 defaults out of 38 defaults damages were levied at a rate ranging from 1% to 10% in respect of 4 defaults damages were levied at 30% and in respect of one default damages were levied 20 %. It is the impugned order levying damages in the aforesaid manner which has been challen- ged by the way of the present petition.

( 2 ) BEFORE we deal with the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioner we must define the scope of a petition of the present nature. This Court in exercising powers under Article 227 will not convert the proceeding virtually into an appeal against the impugned order. This Court will not substitute its determination in place of the determination made by the competent authority. It is not for this Court to consider to what extent damages would have been levied by this Court if it was exercising the powers which have been exercised by the competent authority in passing the impugned order. In other words this petition cannot be treated as virtually an appeal on merits against the impugned order. So also it is not necessary in order to uphold the order passed by the competent authority that we must agree with each and every of the reasons which weighed with him or agree with every word said by him in his impugned order. It must also be realised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document