SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg - Appellant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Organization - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 2136, 2121, 2135, 2141 of 2012
Decided on : 23-02-2022
Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Sections 7A and 14B – Imposition of damages – Mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities – Any default or delay in payment of EPF contribution by employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of Act 1952 and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities. (Paras 13, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 26th October, 2009 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. while setting aside the judgment of Single Judge dated 3rd February, 2009, it was observed that once employer has failed to deposit the contribution of EPF or committed default as mandated under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, having failed to do so after determination under Section 7A by the competent authority, levy of damages is a sine qua non and upheld the order for recovery of damages in the proceedings initiated under Section 14B of Act 1952.
Finding of Court:
Establishment of the appellant(s) was covered under the provisions of the Act 1952, but still failed to comply with the same and for such non-compliance of the mandate of the Act 1952, initially the proceedings were initiated under Section 7A and after adjudication was made in reference to contribution of the EPF which the appellant was under an obligation to pay and for the contravention of the provisions of Act 1952, the appellant(s) indeed committed a breach of civil obligations/liabilities and after compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Act 1952 and for the delayed payment of EPF contribution for the period January 1975 to October 1988, after affording due opportunity of hearing as contemplated, order was passed by the competent authority directing the appellant(s) to pay damages as assessed in accordance with Section 14B of the Act 1952.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 26th October, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
2. That while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd February, 2009, it was observed that once the employer has failed to deposit the contribution of EPF or committed default as mandated under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1952”), having failed to do so after determination under Section 7A by the competent authority, levy of damages is a sine qua non and upheld the order for recovery of damages in the proceedings initiated under Section 14B of the Act 1952.
3. The undisputed facts culled out from the record are that the establishment of the appellant(s) is covered under the provisions of the Act 1952. On 31st December, 1974, under Code no.KN/8573 under scheduled head “Fruit Orchards”, the appellant(s) failed to comply with the provisions of Act 1952 from 1st January, 1975 to 31st October, 1988. For non-compliance of the mandate of Act 1952, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A and dues towards contribution of EPF for the intervening period of 1st January, 1975 to 31st October, 1988 amounting to Rs.74,288/- were assessed by the competent authority and after adjudication, that was paid by the appellant to the office of EPF. Thereafter, the authorities issued a notice under Section 14B of the Act 1952 to charge damages for the delayed payment of provident fund amount which was levied for the period January 1978 to September, 1988 and called upon the appellant(s) to pay damages of Rs.85,548/-. The High Court under the impugned judgment held that once the default in payment of contribution is admitted, the damages as being envisaged under Section 14B of the Act 1952 are consequential and the employer is under an obligation to pay the damages for delay in payment of contribution of EPF under Section 14B of the Act 1952, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
4. The Act 1952 is a legislation for providing social security to the employees working in any establishment and engaging 20 or more persons on any day and casts an obligation upon the employer to make compulsory deduction for provident fund and to deposit in the workers account in the EPF office. Similar is the provision which is pari materia to recover damages under Section 85B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1948”) providing insurance and pensionary benefits to the employees.
5. Section 14B of the Act 1952 which is pari materia to Section 85B of the Act, 1948 is reproduced hereunder:
Provided that before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that the Central Board may reduce or waive the damages levied under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick Indust
Organo Chemical Industries and another v. Union of India and others
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. HMT Ltd. And Another
Mcleod Russell India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri and others
Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others
Imposition of damages – Mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.
The court established that while imposing damages under the Act, the circumstances around the delay should be considered, rather than imposing 100% damages mandatorily.
Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under the EPF Act; damages serve as penalties for defaults and ensure employee benefits, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions from authorities.
The delay in EPF remittance does not exempt the employer from penalties, as mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Act.
S.14B of Act read as Power to recover damages.
Damages under Section 14B cannot be imposed without arrears; compliance with the Act negates default, and mens rea is not essential for penalties.
Delay in EPF contributions results in automatic penalties under Section 14B, independent of intent, reinforcing the strict liability principle in social welfare legislation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.