JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nishant Mehrotra learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 22.01.1999 passed by the respondent no.1. The petitioner has also sought direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to impose the damages upon the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an educational institution and is registered under the Society Registration Act and had introduced the Provident Fund Scheme for its employees privately and number of employees working in the institution were less than 10 but for the first time on 04.06.1991 the respondent's authority informed that the petitioner's institution was covered under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.07.1990. Thereafter the respondents initiated the proceedings under section 7A of EPF & MP Act 1952 for realization of the Provident Fund dues since the date of enforcement of the Act i.e. 01.07.1990 then the petitioner deposited the entire amount of the contribution of the period from 1990 to 1995 on 13.10.1995.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the amount of contribution was deposited by the petitioner establishment thereafter it received notice under section 14-B of the Act for levy of damages imposed by the respondent authority as the petitioner has made the delayed payment and defaulted to pay the Employees Provident Fund Contribution on the due date for the period 08/1990 to 06/1996. The submission of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had already deposited entire amount of contribution in 1995 and delay in the depositing the contribution was due to the pendency of the proceedings under 7A of the Act and also the petitioner educational institution is willing to comply the provisions of Provident Fund Scheme in his School, however, the respondent authority while passing the impugned order dated 22.01.1999 had not consider all the aforesaid facts.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel appeared for the respondents has supported the order passed under section 14-B of the Act and submitted that the petitioner establishment was employing more than 20 employees as on 01.07.1990 and was covered under the EPF & MP Act 1952 with effect from 01.07.1990 vide letter dated 27.03.1991 on the basis of enquiry report dated 24.08.1990 submitted by the Enforcement Officers and therefore the petitioner establishment was directed to comply with provisions of the EPF & MP Act 1952 and scheme frame there under vide letter dt. 04.06.1991. A notice dated 07.02.1992 was issued under section 7A of the Act for determination of the dues. The establishment disputed the applicability of the Act on the ground that they were never employing 20 or more persons. However the establishment started compliance of the provisions of the Act and submitted photocopies of the challans in support of the demand of the dues deposited for the period 08/90 to 01/96 i.e. since coverage.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that petitioner had been covered under the EPF & MP Act 1952 with effect from 01.07.1990 by coverage letter dated 27.03.1991 and at the later stage has accepted the liability and started the compliance of the provisions of the Act and in such circumstances the employer establishment had defaulted for the payment of Provident Fund dues for a long time and for the said reason the establishment is liable to pay the damages levied on the belated payment under the provisions of Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act 1952 because the delay was on the part of the petitioner in depositing the PF contribution, hence the petitioner is liable to pay damages as per Section 14-B of the EPF Act. The EPF Act is social security legislation and is meant for the benefits of the employees. The provisions of Section 14-B and Section 7-Q