TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h case in the statement annexed to the impugned order. A show cause notice was served on the appellants requiring them to show cause why damages made under Section 14-B of the Act should not be levied against them for the delay in making the payment for the aforesaid period. It was contended that though delay was alleged in making payment in March, 1975, the show cause notice for the same had been given only on November 24, 1984 and because of the long lapse of time between the period of delay and the show cause notice, the appellant could not effectively exercise its right to explain the circumstances relevant for the purpose. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was illegal, and deserves to be quashed. It was further contended that the appellant/industry had suffered recession in 1970 and was facing financial difficulties and that was the reason for not making the payment in time, and that the authorities should have taken into consideration these facts while fixing the amount of damages and since it has not been done, the impugned order is illegal. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted before the learned single Judge that no period of limitation is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order should have been set aside. It was also pointed out from the table annexed to the impugned order that in some cases 100% levy of damages was made and in a few cases 50% and in the rest of the cases ranging from 20% to 40%. 5. W.P. No. 9609 of 1988 : This writ petition was filed by the appellant in W.A.No. 992 of 1995, to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent in Ref.No. TN/SDC/7832/Accts/88 dated March 24, 1988 and to quash the same. This writ petition was argued by Mr. V. Manivannan. Under the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner was directed to remit the following amount by way of damages. SI.No Amount Account to which it relates i) The Provident Fund contributions Rs.2,01,905-45 in EPF A/C.No. 1 ii) The Administrative charges 5,467.60 " 2 iii) Family Pension Fund contributions 31,800-40 " 10 iv) Deposit Linked Insurance Contributions and 7,012-75 " 21 v) Administrative charges 1,403-75 " 22 Total Rs. 2,47,589,95 6. In this case, the damages was levied for the period from March, 1980 to July, 1981 and September, 1981 to February, 1984, totalling to Rs. 2,47,589-95. Mr. V. Manivannan, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r which contributions are payable, deduct the employee's contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well as administrative charges of such percentage of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee, and in respect of which provident fund contributions are payable, as the Central Government may fix, he shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the Fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charges. 8. Placing reliance on the above Rule, Mr. P. Narasimhan argued that since the petitioner establishment has defaulted in payment of Provident fund contribution and other statutory dues under the Act for the period in question, the Department had to invoke the power and function vested with it under Section 14-B of the Act. It is also contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity for personal hearing and only after following the principles of natural justice, the respondent had passed the final speaking order on March 24, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fers a set back on account of defaults, it is forced to give a lesser benefit than what would have been possible if there had been no defaults. All belated payments cause loss of interest on investments besides increasing the cost of administration besides causing pecuniary loss to the Fund. The members are also put to inconvenience. Mr. P. Narasimhan also contended that in the instant case, the employees' share though deducted was not remitted, which amounts to misappropriation and attracts action under Sections 405, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In our view, though the employer is required to remit both the employees' as well as the employer's contribution together with administrative charges before the close of 15th of every month, the petitioner/appellant has miserably failed to remit the same in time. The employer has failed to discharge its obligation to remit both the shares of. contribution in the first instance. Therefore, the payments made after the due date will attract penal damages under Section 14-B of the Act. 12. We have already seen that the respondent has levied damages in some cases at 100%, in a few cases at 50% and in other cases rangi....