Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Dentsu One Pvt Ltd vs Regional P F Commissioner Ii Delhi South on 21 October, 2020
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:SINDHU
KRISHNAKUMAR
Signing Date:21.10.2020 20:43:04
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8294/2020 & CM APPLs. 26860-61/2020
M/S DENTSU ONE PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Arora & Mr. Rajiv Arora,
Advocates.(M:9899233114)
versus
REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER II DELHI
SOUTH ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (M:
9810587998).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 21.10.2020
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter 'EPF Act'). The submission of Mr. Arora, ld. counsel for the Petitioner is that under Section 7Q of the EPF Act, interest cannot be levied beyond the damages which are imposed under Section 14B of the EPF Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Organo Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(1979) 4 SCC 573]. Ld. counsel further submits that the issue is also pending before the Full Bench of this Court.
3. Ms. Sidhu, ld. counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submits that this issue was settled in the judgment of M/s Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2013, Decided on 18.10.2013].
4. After hearing the parties, the only issue that arises is about the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:21.10.2020 19:57 Digitally Signed By:SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR Signing Date:21.10.2020 20:43:04 computation of damages and interest. This is not the first round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24th January, 2019, in LPA 688/2018 titled M/s Dentsu Marcom Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Trustees Through: Assistant PF Commissioner Delhi (South) had remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority.
5. The submission of Ms. Sidhu, ld. counsel is that the computation has been done in terms of the said remand order and that she would like to place the same on record by way of an affidavit. Let the affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks, thereafter.
6. Since, the amount of Rs.62,05,360/- is already lying with the PF Authority, no coercive measures would be taken to enforce the recovery of the interest component imposed under Section 7Q of the EPF Act, vide the impugned order.
7. The arrangement directed by the ld. Division Bench vide order dated 24th January, 2019 shall continue and the amount of Rs.62,05,360/- shall continue to be kept in an FDR.
8. List on 21st January, 2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2020 dj/A Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:21.10.2020 19:57