Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
C&Cr vs The Registrar on 16 June, 2025
16.06.2025
Item No.18
Ct. No. 30
Aloke
WPA 9694 of 2025
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional
Officer, Durgapur
C&CR
Vs.
The Registrar, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol, & Anr.
Ms. Aparna Banerjee
... for the Petitioner
None
...... for the Respondents
1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.
2. The present writ application has been preferred against an order dated 31st July, 2023 passed in Appeal No. EPFA 7 of 2015 by the CGIT, Assansol.
3. The petitioner/RPF Commissioner is aggrieved with the said order of the Tribunal, on the ground that the summon dated 12.03.2014 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur was directed to be issued afresh as per the observation in the award which is not in accordance with law.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that default period in the present case is from 06.01.2000 to 22.08.2008 and thus the period of default herein is prior to the amendment to Para 32-A of the EPF Scheme which came into force on 29.06.2008 and the damages/penalty 2 levied is as per the said provision, which was in force prior to the said amendment.
5. Relying upon the judgments of Calcutta High Court in:-
i. Andrew Yule and Company Limited vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others [C.O. No. 15347 (W) of 1992]. ii. Atal Tea Company Limited and Another vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [C.O. No. 17462 (W) of 1996], the Tribunal directed as follows:-
"I find from the summons in proceeding and the impugned order that the Provident Fund Commissioner had exceeded its jurisdiction and acted in an arbitrary manner by applying rates of damages which have already been amended and did not exist at the time the assessment of damages was made. The impugned order therefore is not sustainable under the facts and law and the same is liable to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed on contest. The instant case is remanded to the Provident Fund authority for passing a fresh order after hearing the appellant establishment."
6. It appears that the learned tribunal was of the view that the penalty is to be assessed as per Para 32A of the EPF Scheme which was in effect on the date the proceedings under Section 14B was initiated on the basis of a 3 summon. It has been held that though the period of default is prior to the amendment, the rate of penalty is to be as per the provision of Para 32A of the EPF Scheme which was in force when the proceeding under Section 14B was initiated.
7. The tribunal was of the view that the assessment could not be made at the rate for the period of default as per the pre amended Para 32A of the EPF Scheme as the proceedings were initiated subsequently.
8. The case of the petitioner is that the assessment made by the petitioner/authority is in accordance with law and though the proceeding was initiated after the amendment to Section 32A EPF Act, the assessment of penalty (for the said period) in respect of the period of default has been duly assessed as per the prevailing provision of law at the time of default.
9. The amendment to Para 32A of the EPF Scheme came into force (w.e.f.) on 29.08.2008, and no retrospective effect was given to the said amendment.
10. An amendment effective date is the specific date when changes made to a contract or legal document through an amendment become legally binding and enforceable. It signifies 4 when the new or revised terms and conditions outlined in the amendment will start to apply. Purpose of an effective date is that the effective date of an amendment clarifies when the changes in the document/law become active and legally binding. Amendments can be effective from the date of the amendment itself, or they can be retroactive, meaning they apply to events that occurred before the amendment was enacted, but in the present case, no retrospective effect was given to the said amendment.
11. In the present case the amendment to Para 32A EPF Scheme came into effect on (w.e.f.) 28.09.2008 and became enforceable also on that date.
12. There was no retrospective effect to the said amendment.
13. Section 14B of the EPF Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for levy or recovery of damages.
14. In M/s K. Streetlite Electric Corporation vs R.P.F. Commissioner, (2001) 4 SCC 449, the Supreme Court held:-
That where order for levying damages passed was after delay of 6-10 years, but it caused no irretrievable prejudice to the employee, then the delay would not vitiate the order. 5
15. In the present case there has been a delay of about 6 years.
16. Thus, as the amendment to Para 32A of EPF Scheme came into effect from 28.09.2008, with no retrospective effect, the period of default prior to the amendment would be governed by the provision which was in force prior to the amendment and the default period after the amendment came into force would be covered by the amendment.
17. The tribunal's order thus not being in accordance with law is set aside.
18. The order dated 31st July, 2023 passed in Appeal No. EPFA 7 of 2015 by the CGIT, Assansol, is thus set aside.
19. The authority (APFC Durgapur) is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as per their summons dated 12.03.2014, against the company, who has chosen not to contest this case.
20. WPA 9694 of 2025 is disposed of.
21. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
23. Let a copy of this order be sent to the tribunal. 6
24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)