Punjab-Haryana High Court
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... vs Vidyawati Mukand Lal Bal Niketan Model ... on 4 July, 2011
LPA No.1595 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 1595 of 2010
Date of decision 4 .7 .2011
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another . Appellants
Versus
.
Vidyawati Mukand Lal Bal Niketan Model Town .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. R. Kartikey, Advocate for the respondent
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of two Letters Patent Appeal Nos.LPA No.1595 of 2010 and LPA No.221 of 2011 because common judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge is subject matter of challenge. The learned Single Judge while disposing of bunch of petitions has allowed two writ petitions namely CWP No. 9247 of 1994 (Mukand Lal National College v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another ) and CWP No. 10966 of 1994 (Vidyawati Mukand Lal Bal Niketan Model Town v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another). It is appropriate to mention that the writ petitions were admitted and were pending in this Court for final disposal. There was an interim order passed in favour of the writ petitioner- respondent with regard to deposit of provident fund as per the demand raised by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner after assessing the same under Section 47A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'). Notices for recovery of the amount were issued on 28.7.1994 (P.1) and despite the stay LPA No.1595 of 2010 2 order granted by this Court to deposit the amount demanded, the writ petitioner- respondent deposited the amount in the year 2008 alongwith interest. After the amount was deposited, the Authority issued notice to the writ petitioner- respondent under Section 14 B of the Act for initiation of proceedings for damages. The learned Single Judge after noticing the aforesaid facts has come to the conclusion that in such a situation no delay can be attributed to the writ petitioner- respondent which may warrant initiation of proceedings for recovery of damages under Section 14 B of the Act. Accordingly, the show cause notices issued during the pendency of the writ petition were also quashed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there was a serious dispute with regard to payment of Employees Provident Fund and keeping this in view this Court by way of interim order has stayed the recovery from the writ petitioner- respondent. However, still they deposited the amount. Accordingly, we do not find any infringement of the rights of the appellant nor there is any justification for initiation of proceedings under Section 14 B of the Act for damages. The learned Single Judge has not committed any such error in law warranting admission of the appeal. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 4.7 .2011 Judge okg