Allowed

B H S Higher Education Society v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2012WP/37515/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition to quash impugned orders imposing excessive damages under the EPF Act. Relying on a recent judgment, the Court held an excess levy was impermissible and directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to impose reasonable damages within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed to impose reasonable damages within four weeks.

B H S Higher Education Society Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.37515/2012(L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

B H S HIGHER EDUCATION SOCIETY NO. 35/1, 11TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY SRI B V NARAYANA RAO

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( BY SRI. S G PANDIT, ADV.,)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NO. 13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025

¶13

2 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN BHIKAMJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI-110 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

3 THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶15

¶16

COMPLIANCE AND RECOVERY REGIONAL OFFICE (COMPLIANCE WING) NO. 570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY 26TH CROSS, NEAR RAJARAJESHWRI TEMPLE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098

¶17

( BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.,)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.8.10 OF THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ANNX-A) IN ATA NO.243(6) AND THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 7.11.2000 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-B AND ALSO THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.7.12 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10.8.12 VIDE ANNX-C PASSED BY R2 & ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner has called in question the order passed by

¶22

the EmployeesProvident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No.243(6)2001 dated 27.08.2010 produced at AnnexureA`, confirming the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, in No.KN/PF/PD/8293/305/Damages Cell/2000 dated

¶23

07.11.2000 produced at Annexure B and further

¶24

¶25

communication issued by respondent No.2 bearing No.RRCII/10(18)2012/KN/VIP Case/12409 dated 26.07.2012 produced at Annexure C.

¶26

The only grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has paid provident fund contribution to the tune of Rs.19,56,049=49Ps. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has imposed Rs.15,04,806/- by way of damages, which is almost 76.9% of the actual contribution and the same is not permissible in terms of para 32A of the Employees` Provident Fund Scheme.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the order of the Regional Commissioner has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and as such, there is hardly any scope for interference with the said order.

¶28

It is not in dispute that, while calculating the damage, neither the Regional Commissioner nor the

¶29

¶30

Appellate Tribunal has considered the scope of imposing the damages in terms of Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as **the Act**) and para 32 of the EPF Scheme. This Court, in W.P. No.588/2012 disposed of on 21/08/2012, considering the scope of the power under Regulation 14B of the Act read with para 324 of the EPF Scheme, has held that, the Regional Commissioner as well as the appellate authority has power to reduce damage. Taking into consideration all the circumstances under which the contribution was not made, it was not mandatory for the Regional Commissioner or the appellate authority to impose a higher limit of 37% damages. If the grounds are made out by the petitioner for reduction of the damage at a rate below 37%, it is open to the Regional Commissioner to consider the same.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. In so far as levy of damages is concerned, the impugned orders are quashed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is

¶32

¶33

directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and impose reasonable damages having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 588/2012 disposed of on 21/08/2012 as early as possible not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

Petitioner may file objection or representation showing as to how the damage is required to be reduced below 37%.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

sma

B H S Higher Education Society v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B H S Higher Education Society v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Vijayakumar

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Prabhu

The Member Secretary Vs Sri. Mallikarjuna Murthy

Sri a K Manjaiah Vs Divisional Controller,Ksrtc

T Sreenivasa Vs the Divisional Controller

Baby Vs Varija S Shetty