Employers must adhere to statutory obligations under EPF law and are liable for interest on delayed payments, regardless of reasons for non-payment.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri Rajeev Ratan Chaudhari, learned Standing counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 14 (b) of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) thereby directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.27,82,961/-. Out of the said amount all the EPF dues payable to the employees of Irrigation Department.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a factory within the meaning of Factories Act and is engaged in manufacturing of Tube well spare parts and hardware for pump houses of the irrigation department. To carry out the said manufacturing activities the petitioner Establishment has 127 employees of which 118 employees are industrial employees covered under various provisions of Labour Laws which includes Machinists, Turner, Electricians, Helper etc. It is further submitted that the petitioner establishment has been regularly depositing their statutory dues under State Employees Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF). It is stated that from March,1992 to February, 2001 they have not deposited the employer's contribution towards EPF as the same was not sanctioned by the State. Consequently proceedings under Section 14 B were initiated by the Prescribed Authority / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Labour Camp, Gorakhpur. As per the notice the petitioner stated that the delay was on account of the fact that the State had not sanctioned the said amount and, hence, the same could not be deposited.

4. After considering the submissions of the petitioner, the EPF Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay following amount:-

5. The aforesaid amount is the statutory amount due from the petitioner and there is no infirmity either in calculation or the fact that the petitioner was under statutory duty to deposit the said amount with EPF Commissioner. Though the said order 22.8.2003 is under challenge but it is noticed that the same are statutory dues payable to the employees and the petitioner, on the other hand, does not shirk of its liability to pay the said dues and consequently this Court does not find any valid reason to challenge the order dated 22.8.2003. Apart form the order dated 22.8.2003 passed under Section 14 B of the Act of 1952, the petitioner has also been directed to pay interest on the delayed payment as per Section 7 Q of the Act of 1952 interest has been sanctioned at the rate of 12 per cent which amounts to Rs.8,06,519/-.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that there were valid reasons for not depositing the EPF contribution within the time specified as the said amount was not sanctioned by the State and consequently could not deposit with the EPF Commissioner within the stipulated time. He has submitted that as the reasons was bonafide and sufficient no interest on delayed payment could have been imposed by the respondents.

7. Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh appearing for the respondents submits that once it is demonstrated that the employer has defaulted in making payments of EPF contribution then first