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

2023 Supreme(All) 2736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
M/s. U.P. National Manufactures Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal/CGIT and 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 3502 OF 2020.
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Devesh Tripathi.
For the Respondent: Sachindra Upadhyay, Ashish Jaiswal.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14B and 7Q - Quantum of damages determined by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner challenged - Total damages of Rs.2,50,747/- (Rs.1,77,719/- under Section 14B and Rs.73,028/- under Section 7Q); half already deposited following interim order. (Paras 2-3)

(B) Delay and financial condition considered - Discretion under Section 14B acknowledged but not under Section 7Q - Damages under Section 14B reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- while maintaining interest under Section 7Q. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an organization contesting the quantum of damages imposed for delay in contribution remittance after 8-9 years, emphasizing no mens rea for the delay and requesting a reduction in damages.

Findings of Court:
The court reduced damages under Section 14B to Rs.1,00,000/- while leaving interest under Section 7Q unchanged.

Issues: The main issues were the approach to delays in contribution remittances and the assessment of damages under the relevant sections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that both the delay of the respondents and the financial condition of the petitioner warranted reconsideration of the damages assessed under Section 14B, while the strict interpretation of Section 7Q precluded any discretionary reduction of interest.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with partial relief granted.

Table of Content
1. determination of damages under act, 1952 (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's argument for reduction of damages (Para 4)
3. respondents' position on damages and benefits to employees (Para 5)
4. court's reduction of damages based on circumstances (Para 6)
5. final order disposing the writ petition (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Devesh Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondents.

2. Petitioner, an organization, is aggrieved from quantum of damages determined by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner by means of impugned order passed under Section 14B of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1952").

3. Damages determined under Section 14B of Act, 1952 is Rs. 1,77,719/- and under Section 7Q is Rs. 73,028/-, total being Rs. 2,50,747/-. In pursuance of interim order passed by this Court half of amount has already been deposited by petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have approached appropriate authority after a huge delay of 8-9 years which was not considered by authority as well as considering the financial condition of petitioner there was no mens ria in depositing the contribution belatedly and further prayed that since there is a discretion lies under Section 14B and 7Q of Act, 1952, therefore, damages and interest may be reduced.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner has not raised the above contention before appropriate authority and interest deposited in terms of order passed under Section 7Q is for benefit of employees and there is no discretion in said provision. However, he fairly submits that this Court may determine quantum of penalty passed under Section 14B of Act, 1952.

6. Taking note of above submissions as well as that there was a delay on behalf of respondents also and that financial condition of petitioner is also appears to be not good, therefore, without interfering with interest fixed under Section 7Q of Act, 1952, the damages under Section 14B is reduced from Rs. 1,77,719/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Petitioner is directed to deposit remaining amount, after deducting the amount already deposited, within two months from today.

7. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed 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