Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1937 - HC - Indian LawsRestriction on recovery of damages to 5% per annum - It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the petitioner passed an order, levying damages on the second respondent under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the first respondent is a detailed and well considered order. Each 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 regulations cannot be a fetter to the exercise of the power that is conferred upon the Provident Fund Commissioner by the provisions of the enactment, but guide and channelise the exercise of discretion. The Tribunal has also rightly held that neither regulation 32A or 32B can be regarded as inflexible - 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. Petition dismissed.
|