Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18566
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
M/S. NATIONAL SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2024 (L-PF)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. NAVEEN J.N
For the Respondents: SRI. M. PRADEEP, SRI. S. VISWESWARIAH
The writ petition was dismissed as the appropriate remedy for challenging damages lies in an appeal under statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Sections 8G, 14B, and 7(I) - Writ petition challenging recovery order - Petitioner directed to pay interest and damages for delayed payment - Petition dismissed with liberty to appeal - No exceptional case presented to bypass statutory remedy. (Paras 2, 11, 12, and 16).
(B) Procedure for appeal - Writ petition not maintainable when remedy provided under the Act exists - Damages could be contested through appeal. (Paras 6 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an order imposing damages and interest for delayed provident fund payment, claiming unavoidable circumstances for the delay.
Findings of Court:
Interest component must be paid, while damages are subject to appeal under statutory provisions.
Issues: The need for statutory compliance in challenging damages and the maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting statutory remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner could not make out a case to bypass the appeal process defined under the Act, which remains the appropriate forum for relief regarding damages.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court acknowledges responsibility of payment for interest. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 11) |
| 2. petitioner's contestation against damage order under the act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court affirms statutory remedy via appeal regarding damages. (Para 10 , 12) |
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated
02.02.2024 at Annexure-L passed by respondent No.2.
3. In terms of the said order, respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.11,67,627/-. It is noticed that the said order is passed under Sections 8G and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the 'Act' of 1952).
4. The order at Annexure-E would also provide the breakup of the aforementioned figure of Rs.11,67,627/-. It is noticed in the order dated 26.05.2022 at Annexure-E that, Rs.5,61,084/- is the interest payable on account of delayed payment and the balance amount of Rs.6,05,993/- is the damages awarded under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 as per Annexure - F.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to pay the interest component and he would contest the award of damages, as there was no willfull default or delay on the part of the petitioner and the delay in paying the provident fund dues is on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner has to file an appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act of 1952, and the writ petition is not maintainable.
7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar. Since the petitioner undertakes to pay the interest component of Rs.5,61,084/-, the Court has to direct the petitioner to pay the said amount.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.2,80,600/- is already deposited before this Court and the balance interest component be deposited before respondent No.2 within five working days from today.
9. Submission is placed on record.
10. The Registry of this Court is directed to transmit the amount deposited before this Court, to respondent No.2. On transfer of said amount and the amount to be deposited by the petitioner, in all amount to Rs.5,61,084/-, the amount payable by the petitioner towards interest stands discharged.
11. The next question is damages. As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has to file an appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act of 1952. No exceptional case is made out to bypass the statutory remedy. Under these circumstances, reserving liberty to file an appeal as provided under law before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is to be dismissed.
12. In case the appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority in the manner provided by law, the same shall be considered by taking into consideration all contentions available for both parties.
13. The time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition from 21.02.2024 till today be excluded in computing the limitation.
14. Since there is an attachment order directing the petitioner's bankers to freeze the amount to the tune of Rs.11,68,627/-, this Court has to modify the said order, subject to the petitioner depositing interest component before respondent No.2 within five working days from today.
15. On such deposit, the petitioner shall maintain the minimum balance of Rs.6,06,993/- in account bearing No.50200033523726 in HDFC Bank, Chikkaballapura Branch. The HDFC Bank shall defreeze the aforementioned account subject to the aforesaid compliance. The petitioner shall always maintain the minimum balance of Rs.6,06,993/-.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
