Karnataka High Court
M/S Supreme Tile Works vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner on 1 February, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.54789/2016 (L-PF)
AND WRIT PETITION No.15692/2017
BETWEEN:
M/s. Supreme Tile Works,
N.H.66, Tallur,
Kundapura Tq., Udupi Dist.,
Rep. by its Managing Partner. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Nataraja Ballal A, Advocate)
AND:
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,
S.R.O., 2nd and 3rd Floor, 'Tulunadu Towers',
Court Road, Udupi - 576 101. ... Respondent
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders dated
29.1.2016 passed by the respondent (Annexure-A and B).
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner, M/s. Supreme Tile Works, has challenged the legality of the order dated 29.1.2016, passed by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner, under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2 1952 ('the Act', for short), whereby the learned Commissioner has levied damages to the tune of Rs.6,67,805/-. The petitioner has also challenged another order, equally dated 29.1.2016, passed under Section 7Q of the Act, whereby the learned Commissioner has imposed the interest to the tune of Rs.3,27,666/-.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on the business of manufacturing and marketing Mangalore tiles. The petitioner has a factory at Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. The petitioner is covered under the provisions of the Act. According to him, he is even paying the contributions of both employers and employees to the respondent. However, due to lack of sales, due to drought affecting the District, due to construction of the buildings with concrete roofs, the demand for Mangalore tiles has fallen drastically in the market. Because of these reasons, the petitioner could not deposit the PF amount from April 2013 to December 2014. Therefore, notices were issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, after hearing the petitioner, both the impugned orders were passed by the respondent. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3
3. Mr. Nataraja Ballal A, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not have mens rea to evade the payment of PF amount. But due to severe economic conditions being faced by the petitioner, the petitioner could not pay the PF amount. He further submits that according to the petitioner they have already deposited the interest amount levied by the learned Commissioner, by his order dated 29.1.2016, i.e., an amount of Rs.3,27,666/-. Therefore, the orders deserve to be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders.
5. A bare perusal of the order dated 29.1.2016, passed under Section 14B of the Act, clearly reveals that the petitioner had frankly admitted that he had delayed the payment of PF from April 2013 to December 2014. Although the petitioner has tried to explain the reasons behind the delay in payment of the PF, the said reasons cannot be accepted. For, the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation in favour of the labour class. In case the employer is absolved of his liability to pay the PF, and is absolved from paying the damages, and the interest, due to 4 delay in depositing the PF, it is the large number of workmen who would suffer. The intention of the law is not to jeopardize the interest of the workmen. In fact, the purpose of the law is to protect their interest. Therefore, the reasons given by the petitioner for not depositing the PF amount, at the relevant time, cannot be accepted.
6. The same point was raised before the learned Commissioner, and the learned Commissioner has also noted that the said reasons cannot be accepted for the delay in payment of the PF.
7. Once the petitioner himself has admitted to the default committed by him, he cannot be permitted to argue that he does not have mens rea.
8. Since the learned Commissioner has given cogent reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD