Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Central Board Of Trustees vs Roma Henny Security Services Pvt.Ltd. on 27 February, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6592/2014
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ROMA HENNY SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 6570/2014 (XIV)
C.A. No. 6538/2014 (XIV)
C.A. No. 6572/2014 (XIV)
C.A. No. 6537/2014 (III-A)
CIVIL APPEAL NO…………/2019
[@SLP(C) No. 19610/2017] (IX)
O R D E R
Leave granted in SLP [C] No.19610/2017. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has brought to our notice the provisions contained in Clause 32-A of The Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and has urged that the provisions Section of 7Q was inserted in the Employees’ Provident Funds and [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act w.e.f 01.07.1997 whereas the provisions contained under Clause 32-A were inserted on 16.8.1991. The provisions contained in Clause 32-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme is extracted hereunder:
“32-A. Recovery of damages for default in payment of any contribution:- (1) where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund, or in the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-Section (2) of Section 15 or sub-Section (5) of Section 17 of the Act or in the payment of any Signature Not Verified charges payable under any other provision of the Act or Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.03.13 Scheme or under any of the conditions specified under 16:47:10 IST Reason: Section 17 of the Act, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazettee, in this behalf, may recover from the employer by way of penalty, damages at the rates given below:-2
Period of Rate of damages
default (percentage of
arrears per
annum)
(a) Less than Seventeen
two months
(b) Two months Twenty-two
and above but
less than four
months
(c) Four months Twenty seven
and above but
less than six
months
(d) Six months Thirty seven
and above
(2) The damages shall be calculated to the nearest rupee, 50 paise or more to be counted as the nearest higher rupee and fraction of a rupee less than 50 paise to be ignored.” The Full Bench of the High Court has not considered the effect of the aforesaid Clause 32-A of the Scheme. It does not provide that the interest is included in the penalty specified in the provisions under Clause 32-A of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 at the rate of 17%, 22%, 27% and 37% respectively, on the basis of period of default. It has also not gone into question whether the Circular of 1990 issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner would hold the field in view of the statutory provisions of Clause 32-A of the Scheme introduced in 1991. The High Court has also not taken into consideration whether Clause 32-
A of the Scheme can be taken to include interest when provision for interest 7Q was not in force. It has also not gone into the question whether the Circular of 1990 can prevail upon the 3 statutory provisions contained in Clause 32-A of the Scheme which prescribes the rate of damages. Question is whether damages so specified include the component of interest. May be that 1990 Circular included the component of interest in rate of damages but that was not so provided under the statutory provisions of Clause 32-A of Scheme. The effect of provisions of Section 7Q as inserted in 1997 is also required to be considered. We have no hesitation to set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and remit the case to the High Court to consider the effect of Clause 32-A and also consider various questions afresh and decide the case in accordance with law. Circular dated 29.5.1990 has also been brought to our notice which provides that interest component has to be separate than the damages. Let it be placed on record before the High Court and it may also be taken into consideration. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals are disposed of.
……………………..J. [ARUN MISHRA] ……………………..J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2019.
4 ITEM NO.114 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6592/2014 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Appellant(s) VERSUS ROMA HENNY SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 6570/2014 (XIV) C.A. No. 6538/2014 (XIV) C.A. No. 6572/2014 (XIV) C.A. No. 6537/2014 (III-A) @ SLP(C) No. 19610/2017 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.59404/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.59405/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 27-02-2019 These appeals/petition were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Keshav Mohan, Adv.
Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.P. Arora, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Arora, Adv.
Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, AOR Ms. Anubha Goel, Adv.
Ms. Anu Shrivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted in SLP [C] No.19610/2017.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.5
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
[signed order is placed on the file]