IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4613 of 2021, 8042, 8052, 12236, 12253, 12254, 12274 of 2020, 4614, 4615, 4616, 4617, 4618, 8031, 11950, 11951, 12059 and 12121 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7-Q, 14(B), 7-A - Seeking vacation of ex parte interim order - Entitled for any refund of penal damages - Liability of petitioner-Board which is a non-commercial entity governed by State of Rajasthan and formulated for uplifting educational standard in remote areas, to pay penal damages under Section 14(B) and interest under Section 7-Q of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Held, taking into consideration contentions advanced by learned counsels for respective parties and material on record and since, entire controversy involved herein is identical decided by this Court vide judgment , these writ petitions are also disposed of with directions issued therein - However, it has been brought to notice of Court that in some of matters, entire liability stands satisfied - In such cases, petitioner would not be entitled for any refund of penal damages - In cases where liability under Section 7-Q of Act of 1952 has not been discharged, petitioners would be entitled to reduction to 50% of penal damages under Section 14(B) of Act of 1952 only if they discharge same within three months from today - Applications stand disposed of.
ORDER :
Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.
1. Although, the matters come up on applications filed by the respondents seeking vacation of ex parte interim order but, on the joint request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at this stage on merit.
2. Since, all these writ petitions involve common facts and common questions of law, the same are being heard and decided together.
3. In all these writ petitions, the question involved is liability of the petitioner-Board which is a non-commercial entity governed by the State of Rajasthan and formulated for uplifting the educational standard in the remote areas, to pay the penal damages under Section 14(B) and interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity "the Act of 1952"). Learned counsels submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated 07.08.2019 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1913/2016, Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other connected matters involving identical controversy, disposed of the writ petitions reducing the penal damages under Section 14(B) of the Act of 1952 in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of K. Streetlite Electric Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, (2001) 4 SCC 449, to the extent of 50% maintaining the remaining part of the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. They submit that these writ petitions may also be disposed of with similar directions.
4. Although, learned counsel for the respondent did not agree with the proposition but, could not dispute that the judgment dated 07.08.2019 was rendered in identical facts and circumstances and that the department has accepted the aforesaid judgment and did not appeal against the same.
5. In case of Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board (supra), this Court has directed as under:-
8. The writ petitions are disposed of in the terms as indicated above. All the pending applications including the stay applications in the respective writ petitions shall also stands disposed of."
6. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties and the material on record and since, the entire controversy involved herein is identical as in the case of Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board (supra) decided by this Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2019, these writ petitions are also disposed of with the directions issued therein. However, it has been brought to notice of the Court that in some of the matters, entire liability stands satisfied. In such cases, the petitioner would not be entitled for any refund of the penal damages. In cases where liability under Section 7-Q of the Act of 1952 has not been discharged, the petitioners would be entitled to reduction to 50% of the penal damage
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.