Back
1974 Supreme(MP) 132
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh and B. R. Dubey, JJ.
J A TRIVEDI BROTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : Dec 10,1974
R.P.Sinha, Y.S.Dharmadhikari,
Headnote:(1) interpretation of Statutes-implied repeal-not to be readily inferred -additional remedy provided in tile new Act-remedy under an earlier Act not repealed.
It is well settled that implied repeal is not readily inferred and the mere provision of an additional remedy by a new Act does not tike away an existing remedy. The reason is that normally there is no clash between the existing remedy and the additional remedy provided by the new Act and recourse to them can be taken in the alternative by the person fur whose benefit the remedies are so provided [Para 10
(2) Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948-S. 10 A-power to recover arrears of Provident Fund contributions under the provision not taken away by provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 or of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973- hardship to the former owners-does not make the recovery illegal.
The remedy provided under section 10-A of the Provident Fund Act continues to be effective for recovery of the arrears of provident fund contributions and other sums due under the Act before the management of the mines was taken over by the Central Government. It is. of course, true that it would be very hard on the owners to pay huge arrears when they are deprived of the mines and when they have not yet been paid the compensation to which they are entitled under the Taking Over of Management Act and Nationalisation Act. The hardship of the owners is, however, no consideration for holding that the remedy under the Provident Fund Act has ceased to be operative. The Central Government before recovering the amount of arrears under section 10-A of the Provident Fund Act under the certificate procedure can, however consider the feasibility of recovery of arrears from the amount of compensation and the hardship involved in recovering the arrears directly from the owners, if possible, should be avoided we are sure that if in a particular case it is possible to recover the entire arrears easily from the amount of compensation, steps will normally not be taken for recovering the same under section 10-A of the Act But that is not to say that if the Central Government decides to recover the arrears under section 10-A, the recovery proceedings can be held to be illegal. [Para 10
(3) Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948-Ss. 10-A and 7-B-objections under section 7-B were invited and instalments were granted -recovery of arrears after default in payment of instalmenls-there should again be quantification under section 7-B.
When notice was issued to the defaulter the department agreed to receive payments in instalments. There being a default in the payment of instalments a certification for recovery was issued under section la-A. The defaulter contested the amount.
Held: When the petitioners disputed the correctness of the amount, notice should have been issued again under section 7-A for quantification of the arrears. [Para 12
(4) Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act. 1948-10-Fimposition damages-is a quasi judicial act-power should be exercised after notice to the other party.
Damages are imposed and recovered under section 10-F. That section does not contain any express provision that before imposing and recovering damages notice should be issued to the defaulting party. The section merely prescribes the maximum amount of damages which the Central Government can recover. But it is not obligatory in every case that the Central Government must recover damages or that if it decides to recover damages it must recover the same at the maximum rate Subject to the maximum prescribed, the matter is left to the discretion of the Central Government. The very fact that the Central Government has discretion in the matter goes to show that it is implicit in section 10-F that it must bear the defaulting party before deciding to recover damages. It is quite likely that the defaulting party may satisfy that there were good reasons for not making the deposits in time and, therefore, it would not be just and proper to recover damages at all or to recover them at the maximum rate. These cons durations imply that the power to recover damages under section 10-F is a quasi judicial power and must be exercised after notice to the party affected. [Para 12
( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, who are ex-proprietors of certain coal mines, pray for quashing of revenue recovery certificates Annexures K and S, as also for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering the dues relating to provident fund scheme and damages.
( 2. ) PETITIONER No. 1 M/s J. A. Trivedi Brothers is a partnership firm, which held two coal mines in District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. These nines are (1) Ghorawari Hirdagarh Colliery and (2) West Barkuhi Colliery. Petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Chandra was nominated under section 76 of the mines Act, 1952, and was deemed to be the owner of the mines for purposes of the Act. The management of the coal mines was taken over by the Central government under the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, from 30th January 1973. Thereafter, by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)Act, 1973, coal mines were nationalised and the right, title and interest of the owners in the mines stood transferred and vested in the Central Government from 1st May 1973.
( 3. ) THE coal mines held by the petitioners came within the definition of coal mines under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948. The petitioner firm was required to make contribution to the provident fund in accordance with the coal mines provident fund scheme framed under section 3 of the Act. As provided under section 10d of the Act, the petitioner firm was liable to deposit the contributions payable by the employer as also the contributions payable by the employees at the rate specified in the scheme. The petitioners did not deposit these contributions for certain months during the years 1964, 1965, 1967 and 1968.
( 4. ) ON 22nd February 1969 the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner wrote to the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 3,15,866. 30 was in arrears as provident fund contributions and that the same be deposited within 30 days along with damages at the rate of 25 per cent amounting to Rs. 78,966. 58. The petitioners were also asked to file objections, if any, within 15 days. This communication was in respect of West Barkuhi Colliery. After receipt of this letter, the petitioners explained the circumstances as to why the contributions were not deposited in time. They requested for instalments for payment of the arrears and also prayed that no damages or penalty be imposed. By letter dated 7th July 1969 the Commissioner agreed to grant instalments for payment of the arrears. It was further mentioned in this letter that on failure of the petitioners either to pay the current contributions or the instalments to clear the arrears, facility of instalments will be withdrawn without further reference. It is pertinent to note that in this letter the Commissioner did not refer to the penalty of Rs. 78,966. 58 which he had proposed to impose under section 10f in his Letter dated 22nd February 1969. The letter dated 7th july 1969 refers only to the arrears of contributions and not to any damages. By implication it appears that at that stage the Commissioner agreed to the request of the petitioners not to impose any damages. It appears that the petitioners did not pay the instalments regularly and there was also some default in payment of current provident fund contributions. The Commissioner by his letter dated 20th February 1970 referred to the lapses of the petitioners and requested them to take early steps for payment of the provident fund contributions and the monthly instalments within 15 days. It was also stated in the letter that on failure of payment within 15 days, the facility of instalments will be withdrawn and cases will be initiated to recover entire dues along with damages to the extent of 25 per cent on the total dues. The petitioners, in reply to this, explained their difficulties and prayed for some further time. It appears that the Commissioner took steps for recovery of arrears and damages as arrear
