ORDER :

Heard Mr. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. P. Balaji Varma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P. Nos.1336 and 719 of 2010 and representing Mr. Kamatham Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. All the above writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order, dated 06.07.2007 (which was received on 15.09.2010 in W.P. No.27577 of 2010) passed in Appeal ATA Nos.84 (1)/2005, 756(1)/2006 and 928(1)/2005, respectively, and quash the same by declaring the same as illegal.

3. Lis involved in all these writ petitions and parties except respondent No.2 in W.P. No.27577 of 2010 are one and the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in W.P. No.27577 of 2010 will be hereinafter referred to.

5. FACTS:

i) Respondent No.2 in all the writ petitions is a Company and it is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act, 1952’).

ii) Respondent No.1 had passed orders dated 29.09.2004, 08.12.2006 and 6.10.2005 under Section -14B of the Act, 1952, levying an amount of Rs.10,18,558/-; Rs.2,74,615/- and Rs.5,41,226/- for the period from July, 1998 to February, 2004; from November and January, 2005 to March, 2006 and from April, 2000 to December, 2004, respectively, towards damages for the default committed by respondent No.2. Further, an amount of Rs.1,04,227/-was levied towards interest under Section -7Q of the Act, 1952 for the period from November, 2001 and January, 2005 to March, 2006 in W.P. No.1336 of 2010.

iii) Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, respondent No.2 in all the writ petitions had preferred appeals vide ATA Nos.84 (1)/2005, 756(1)//2006 and 928(1)/2005, respectively before respondent No.1 under Section - 7I of the Act, 1952.

iv) Vide order dated 06.07.2007, respondent No.1 reduced the damages up to 70% as assessed by petitioner No.1 in the impugned orders dated 29.09.2004 and 06.10.2005 respectively. Assailing the said order, petitioner No.1 filed the present writ petitions.

6. Contentions of the Petitioner (s):

According to Mr. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondent No.1 has no power to reduce the damages and it is the Central Board of Trustees which has power to reduce or waive the damages levied under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952. Respondent No.2 instead of making an application to the said Central Board of Trustees seeking waiver or reduction of the damages, filed the aforesaid appeals, and without considering the said aspects, respondent No.1 has allowed the said appeals filed by respondent No.2 reducing the damages up to 70% as assessed by petitioner No.1. Thus, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned orders.

7. Contentions of respondent No.2:

Mr. P. Balaji Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, would submit that respondent No.1 has power to set aside or modify the order passed by petitioner No.1 under Section 14B of the Act, 1952 in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1952.

Respondent No.1 has also power to reduce or waive the damages imposed by petitioner No.1 in exercise of its powers under Section -7I of the Act, 1952. Accordingly, considering the factual aspects, respondent No.1 reduced 70% of the damages vide impugned orders, and there is no error in it. Even then, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.

8. Analysis and Finding of the Court:

i) In View of the aforesaid rival submissions, the only issue that falls for consideration before this Court is:

Whether the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Appellate Tribunal has power to reduce damages levied by EPF Organization under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952?