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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 351

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Alias M. Cherian.
For the Respondents: Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair (SR.), Sri. S. Prasanth, SC, Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 14B of the Act requires the employer to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying and recovering damages for default in the payment of contribution to the Fund.

Headnote:

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:-

    “It is submitted that the employer did not appear for the enquiry on 29.10.2015. It is stated in the assessment order itself that no request or representation for adjournment was brought to the notice of the enquiry authority in reply to Ext.P-1 summons.”

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;

    14B. Power to recover damages.-- Where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund, the Pension Fund or the Insurance Fund or in the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-section (2) of section 15 or sub-section (5) of of section 17 or in the payment of any charges payable under any other provision of this Act or of any Scheme or Insurance Scheme or under any of the conditions specified under section 17, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the Scheme:

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

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 Back to top