9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the High Court can interfere with the discretion of the State to levy damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. 2. Whether the delay in remittance of contributions justifies the imposition of damages. 3. Whether the State Government's delay in levying damages after six years is arbitrary and harsh. Analysis: 1. The judgment delves into the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the State's discretion to levy damages under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The petitioner, a firm engaged in manufacturing, was found liable under the Act for delays in remitting contributions. The Court considered Articles 228 and 227 of the Constitution of India in determining its interference in such matters. 2. The Court examined the recurring delays in remittance of contributions by the petitioner. The employer's obligation to remit contributions along with administrative charges by the 15th of each month was highlighted. The petitioner argued that occasional delays of two to five days should not warrant damages. However, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of timely remittance under the Scheme, dismissing the petitioner's contention that the employer's contribution could be paid in the following month. 3. The judgment scrutinized the State Government's actions in levying damages after a significant delay of six years. The Court criticized the State's decision to wait for an extended period before imposing penalties, especially when the delays spanned multiple months. The Court opined that the purpose of Section 14B is both reformative and punitive, providing defaulting employers with an opportunity to rectify their behavior. The Court deemed the State's exercise of discretion as arbitrary and harsh, leading to a quashing of the order imposing damages while refraining from awarding costs due to the petitioner's past defaults.
|
