9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bar of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 14B of the Act. 2. Binding nature of guidelines issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. 3. Discriminatory nature of guidelines issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. 4. Arbitrariness and non-application of mind in the impugned orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re: (a) Bar of Limitation The appellants argued that the proceedings under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 should be quashed due to unreasonable delay and lack of statutory limitation. The court held that there is no statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 14B for initiating action for recovery of damages. The court emphasized that the amounts involved are deductions from employees' wages, and employers, as trustees, are accountable for these amounts at any time. The court cited several decisions supporting the view that delay alone does not vitiate the proceedings unless there is proof of irretrievable prejudice to the employer. The court concluded that mere delay cannot lead to an inference of prejudice, and the intention of the legislature not to prescribe any period of limitation for such proceedings is evident from the absence of any amendment to this effect. Re: (b) Binding Nature of Guidelines The appellants contended that the guidelines issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner for imposing damages should be binding on the respondents. The court disagreed, stating that these guidelines are merely administrative and cannot curb the discretion vested in the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners. The court referred to decisions from various High Courts which held that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner cannot issue instructions that interfere with the quasi-judicial functions of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners. Thus, the court held that the guidelines do not have the force of law and are not binding on the respondents. Re: (c) Discriminatory Nature of Guidelines The appellants argued that the guidelines issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner are discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, reiterating that the guidelines are not binding and do not have the force of law. Therefore, the question of discrimination does not arise. Re: (d) Arbitrariness and Non-application of Mind The appellants claimed that the respondents arbitrarily levied penalties without considering relevant factors like strikes and financial constraints. The court found this submission without merit. It noted that the impugned orders were passed after considering all relevant factors, including the financial difficulties faced by the employers. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, which held that financial difficulties cannot be grounds for relieving the employer of its statutory obligations. The court also observed that the appellants were habitual defaulters who likely utilized the deducted amounts for their business interests. Thus, the court concluded that the impugned orders were not arbitrary or a result of non-application of mind. Conclusion: The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners. The court upheld the validity of the proceedings under Section 14B of the Act, rejected the binding nature of the guidelines issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, and found no arbitrariness or non-application of mind in the impugned orders.
|
