Provident fund liability arises from the scheme's effective date, while damages need a proper finding of default.

Under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme, employer contribution and administrative charges were treated as recoverable from the date the Scheme became applicable to the establishment, because the obligation arose immediately and did not depend on departmental discovery or demand. Administrative charges, being linked to the contribution and fund administration, were also recoverable for the same period. By contrast, damages for default required proof of actual default through a proper adjudicatory process and could not be inferred merely from non-payment during the pre-discovery period; that issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employer's contribution and administrative charges under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Scheme could be recovered for the pre-discovery period from the date the Scheme became applicable; (ii) whether damages for default could be recovered without a prior adjudication of default.

Issue (i): Whether employer's contribution and administrative charges under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Scheme could be recovered for the pre-discovery period from the date the Scheme became applicable.

Analysis: The Scheme was held to operate compulsorily from the date it came into force for the establishment, and the obligation on the employer was treated as immediate and not dependent on discovery by the department or on a demand notice. The expression requiring employees to become members of the fund was construed as mandatory. In that setting, the employer's duty to pay both contributions arose from the relevant date. Administrative charges, being a percentage of the contribution collected and intended to meet the expenses of administering the fund, were also held recoverable on the back-period contribution.

Conclusion: The claim for employer's contribution and administrative charges for the pre-discovery period was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether damages for default could be recovered without a prior adjudication of default.

Analysis: Damages under the Act were held to depend on proof of default, and default could not be inferred merely because payment had not been made during the pre-discovery period. Disputed cases required examination of the facts and an opportunity to the employer to place objections before the statutory authority. In view of the later insertion of the adjudicatory mechanism, the damages claim required fresh consideration by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The damages claim was remitted for fresh consideration and was not finally sustained against the assessee at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: the levy of back-period provident fund contribution and administrative charges was sustained, while the damages question and related hardship claims were left for determination under the statutory enquiry mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provident fund scheme becomes applicable, the employer's statutory obligation to contribute arises from the effective date of the scheme itself, but liability to damages requires a factual finding of default through a proper adjudicatory process.

---