9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch and every ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has been answered in the impugned order dated 08.09.2009, passed by the first respondent. The first respondent has rightly held that the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act is only discretionary. As rightly observed, Section 14B does not mandate that the order for damages must follow in the event of every default. As seen from the materials available on record, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the second respondent to delay the payment of Provident Fund. The Tribunal has rightly held that the regulation 32A in which a graded scale for imposition of damages has been provided cannot be regarded as a rigid or inflexible prescription and regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATA.No.1(13) 2007, passed by the first respondent, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.K.Muralishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent failed to take note of the fact that amendment has been made to Section 14B of the Act, with effect from 26.09.2008. According to him, the damages imposed on the second respondent under Section 14B of the Act cannot be revised by the first respondent, in view of the amendment under Section 14B, which came into force with effect from 26.09.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner does not have the power to red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which Scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme. ] 6.As seen from Section 14(B), the power to recover damages from the employer is only discretionary, as the Section says only "may recover". In the instant case admittedly, the second respondent is a company and even in the reply made to the demand made by the petitioner for the payment of damages under Section 14B, they have expressed that they are facing a financial crisis. 7.Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. APFC and others reported in 2006(3) KLJ 698 and the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s.Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (003) CLR 349 Bombay and the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries and another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1803, while coming to the conclusion. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity in restricting the damages imposed on the second respondent up to 5% per annum on the arrears of contribution. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division Vs. Union Of India and another repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
