JUDGMENT

Petitioner is common in both these writ petitions. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in appeal Nos.51 and 52 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein. Appeal Nos.51 and 52 of 2020 were filed challenging orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kollam imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “1952 Act”) owing to delayed payment of contributions and administrative charges under the 1952 Act for the period from January, 2014 to January, 2017 and from January, 2009 to November, 2018. The order, which was impugned in Appeal No.51 of 2020 related to the imposition of damages for the delay in remittance for a period from January, 2014 to January, 2017, while the order, which was the subject matter of Appeal No.52 of 2020 pertained to damages imposed for the delay in remittance for a period from January, 2009 to November, 2018.

A perusal of the order of the Tribunal will indicate that the damages imposed by the Provident Fund Authorities was reduced to 70% of the damages imposed. The reasons, which weighed with the Tribunal in reducing the damages in respect of the order, which is the subject matter of Appeal No.51 of 2020 are the following:-

“5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that there was delay in remittance of pension fund contribution and inspection charges by the appellant establishment. The appellant establishment is exempted from the provisions of EPF Scheme and also EDLI Scheme. The appellant is complying with respondent only in respect of Employee's Pension Scheme 1995. There was delay in remittance of contribution for the period 01/2014 to 01/2017 and therefore the respondent issued notice directing the appellant to show cause why damages shall not be levied for belated remittance of contribution. A detailed delay statement was also forwarded along with the notice. Appellant was also given an opportunity for personnel hearing. A representative of the appellant attended the hearing and filed a detailed written statement elaborating the reason for delayed remittance of contribution. According to the appellant,

1. The delay in remittance of inspection charges for the period from 09/2014 10/2016 was due to a bonafide mistake. The same was remitted on 24.01.2017 when the mistake was pointed by the Enforcement Officer.

2. The delayed remittance of contribution in respect of Sri.Siyad was due to the fact that he was an excluded employee at the time of joining the appellant establishment. Later when it was brought to the notice of the appellant that he was a member of the Employee Pension Scheme earlier, the appellant enrolled him to Pension Fund and remitted the contribution retrospectively.

3. The delay in rest of the payment was due to the fact of delayed declaration of dearness allowance by the State Government.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is absolutely no justification for levying damages on belated remittance of contribution consequent on delayed declaration of Dearness Allowance by the State Government. The appellant will be in a position to remit the contribution only when the DA is declared by the State Government and arrears are released to the employees.

7 - 9 …................

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has elaborately taken this tribunal through the reasons for delayed remittance of contribution. The delayed remittance of contribution in respect of DA arrears is a valid reason and the appellant cannot be held fully responsible for the delay. With regard to the delayed remittance of inspection charges and contribution in respect of Mr.Siyad, the appellant cannot escape the liability at all. In view of the above, the appellant is entitled for some relief with regard to payment of damages”.

Th