MANJULA CHELLUR, K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Kottayam – Appellant
Versus
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd Cochin Represented By Its Chief Manager-Legal V. Venugopal – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
1. Essentially, these appeals raise a question of law as to the interpretation of Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Paragraph 32A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'). Whether in imposing penalty under Section 14B of the Act, the adjudicating officer is fettered; in so far as, no discretion is conferred on the officer to waive or reduce the penalty since the rates are clearly determined under the sliding table in paragraph 32A of the Scheme? If not; in exercising such discretion what are the factors that ought to be considered by the adjudicating officer? These would be the questions we are called upon to answer in the above appeals.
2. The brief facts necessary are that the respondent Company having been prompt in payment of contribution as provided under the Act and Scheme; prior to 1995 and subsequent to the year 2002, defaulted the same in the intervening period. According to them the default was due to an interim order of stay between 1995 to 1997 and thereafter by reason of severe financial crisis in
Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
1988 1 KLT 28 SN case No.24 ESI Corporation v. Bhaskaran
2009 1 LLJ 56 Regional Director, E S I Corporation v. Managing Director
Hindustan Steel Ltd. V State of Orissa AIR 1970 SC 253
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.