IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Rajiv Gandhi Co-Operative Hospital Ltd., Represented By Its Honorary Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Represented By Its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 7969 of 2016
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Employees Provident Fund - Opportunity of Hearing - The court set aside the order for levying damages under Section 14B of the Act due to the failure to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative hospital, was issued a communication to appear for a hearing regarding belated remittance of Provident Fund dues. The petitioner requested a postponement of the hearing due to a municipal election, but the request was not considered, and damages were levied ex parte.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for levying damages was vitiated by the failure to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court set aside the order but allowed the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice to initiate proceedings for levying damages.
Issues: The main issue was the failure to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer before levying and recovering damages for the default in the payment of contribution to the Fund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 14B of the Act requires the employer to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying and recovering damages, and failure to do so vitiates the order for levying damages.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for levying damages under Section 14B of the Act due to the failure to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but allowed the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice to initiate proceedings for levying damages.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner Co-operative hospital is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner was issued with Ext. P1 communication by the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner asking to appear for hearing on 29.10.2015 and to show cause as to why penal damages as stipulated under Section 14B of the Act shall not be levied for the belated remittance of Provident Fund dues. The petitioner, vide Ext. P2 letter, requested the 2nd respondent to postpone the hearing slated on 29.10.2015 on account of Municipal election. Ext.P2 was sent by registered post on 24.10.2015 by courier service and Ext. P3 is the receipt and Ext. P4 is the delivery report issued by the courier service. Despite Ext. P2 request of the petitioner for postponement of the hearing, the 2nd respondent proceeded with the matter and passed Ext. P5 order levying damages under Section 14 B of the Act. In Ext. P5 proceedings, it is stated that although the petitioner was asked to appear on 29.10.2015 to provide an opportunity for a hearing, neither representation nor a reply from the petitioner was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent nor did anybody appear for a personal hearing and therefore, it is deemed that the petitioner has no explanation to offer regarding the proposed levy, and left with no other option, ex parte proceedings for the determination of damages are issued. Aggrieved by Ext. P5 proceedings, this writ petition is filed.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry which was slated on 29.10.2025 and accordingly, it was decided to conclude the enquiry on 29.10.2015 on the basis of available documents. Paragraph 6 of the statement reads as follows:-
3. Heard Sri. Alias M.Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Prasanth, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
4. Section 14 B of the Act reads as follows;
Provided that before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that the Central Board may reduce or waive the damages levied under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme.
(underlining supplied)
Section 14-B involves imposition of penalty, which entails serious civil consequences. The 1st proviso to Section 14B provides that, before levying and recovering damages for the default in the payment of contribution to the Fund, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
The court established that while imposing damages under the Act, the circumstances around the delay should be considered, rather than imposing 100% damages mandatorily.
Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act; penalties must reflect the circumstances of each case.
Damages under S.14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act are penal and not compensatory, allowing for mechanical imposition up to 25% without ascertaining actual loss.
Damages for delayed payment under the EPF Act cannot exceed the amount of arrears, and interest cannot be levied on penal amounts without statutory authority.
Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under the EPF Act; damages serve as penalties for defaults and ensure employee benefits, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions from authorities.
Damages under Section 14B cannot be imposed without arrears; compliance with the Act negates default, and mens rea is not essential for penalties.
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.