Partly allowed

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2012WP/6522/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging an EPFC order levying damages. Relying on Section 14-B and previous judgments, the court held the Commissioner has power to reduce damages considering circumstances. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter remanded to consider the petitioner's fire-accident grievance.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 17.08.2005 and 23.12.2010; direction to consider grievance for reducing damages considering special circumstances; deposit to be kept in adjustment.

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. Vs Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.6522/2011 (L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M/S.VXL INSTRUMENTS LIMITED, REGD OFFICE NO.17, ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER & COMPANY SECRETARY SHRI NARAYANA BHAT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPF ORGANISATION, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT: NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 14-B OF THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT, IN ORDER OF 17.8.2005 AT ANN-G & CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.23.12.2010 PASSED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

¶15

¶16

TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.ATA/NO.-829/6/2005 OF APPENDED TO THE PETITIONER AS ANN-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner has called in question an order passed by the respondent under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act' for short) interalia levying damages to the tune of Rs.21,38,938/- and directing to pay the same within fifteen days. The said order was called in question in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal by observing that, only in case the industry has become Sick Industry or it comes under the second proviso to Section 14-B of the Act, only then the reducing of damages could be considered.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has deposited the entire interest amount and has also

¶21

¶22

deposited 50% of the damage awarded. However, he submitted that, the industry had suffered a fire accident, as a result of which, it suffered huge financial loss and there are also other financial constraints. For the said reason, the petitioner – employer is not in a position to pay the damages as awarded.

¶23

Considering the scope of Section 14-B of the Act read with paragraph 32-A of the Scheme framed under the Act, this Court in W.P.No.588/2012 and connected matters dated 21^st August 2012 has held that, the power is conferred on the Commissioner for Provident Fund under Section 14-B of the Act to reduce the damage, taking into consideration various circumstances. The said judgment was based on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1803 in the matter of Oregano Chemical Industries and Another -vs- Union of India and others and other matters.

¶24

In view of the same, in this case, the Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have not considered the reasons

¶25

¶26

assigned by the petitioner and the principles of natural justice require consideration. Hence, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by quashing the impugned orders and by issuing the direction to the respondents.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure- G dated 17.08.2005 and AnnexureA dated 23.12.2010, are hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner for reducing the damage in accordance with law by taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the judgment referred to above. However, the deposit already made by the petitioner be kept in deposit till the disposal of the petition by the first respondent and same may be adjusted towards the damages after the order is passed in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

KNM/DP

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. v. Assistant 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

Sri Shankare Gowda S/O Budi Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

V B Mallikeshi S/O Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas P Vs Managing Director the Horticulture Producers Co. Op

Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs Dundaiah S/O Chikkamadegowda

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Vs Sri S M Terdal

The Deputy Conservator of Vs Sri Chinnaiah