Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Raj State Mines vs Employees Pvo Fund Anr ... on 29 March, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023/RJJP/001668]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4810/2010
M/s. Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Khanij Bhanwan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through its Manager (F&A) Sh.
R.K. Singh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar,
Core-II, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New
Delhi- 110092, through its Registrar.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, Nidhi Bhawan,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Chopra with
Mr. Sameer Sharma &
Mr. Kartik Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
REPORTABLE
Reserved on 24.01.2023
Pronounced on 29.03.2023
1. The present petition is filed against the impugned order
dated 19.02.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA 509(12)
2006, titled as Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Jaipur and against the
order dated 04.08.2006 passed by Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner Jaipur under Section 14B of the Employees
Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (2 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
order(s) dated 19.02.2010 and 04.08.2006 have been passed in
contravention of the settled position of law and while passing the
said orders, the respondents have neither considered the relevant
facts of the case nor have they abided by the mandate of the ad
rem statutory provisions pertaining to the imposition of penalty by
way of damages and the corresponding charges on interest.
Hence, the impugned orders are non-est and void ab-initio.
3. In this background, while praying for the quashing of the
orders referred herein-above, learned counsel for the petitioner
has apprised the Court of the brief and relevant factual matrix of
the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is an
enterprise of the Government of Rajasthan, which is engaged in
the mining of rock phosphate, lignite, gypsum, silica and
limestone. The petitioner is covered by the mandate of The
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (hereinafter, 'Act of 1952') and the Employee's Pension
Scheme of 1971. However, the provisions of the Act of 1952 were
applicable to the petitioner only to the extent that the petitioner is
an exempted establishment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act of
1952. The petitioner-company, with a resolve to benefit its
employees, proposed to introduce a pension scheme titled,
'RSMDC Ltd. Employee's Pension Regulations, 1994'; in lieu of the
Employee's Pension Scheme of 1971. The Board of Directors of the
petitioner-company resolved to implement the said Regulations of
1994 w.e.f. 1.04.1994. Meanwhile, during the period when the
said Regulations of 1994 were being finalized, the Central
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (3 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
Government, namely the EPF Department introduced the
'Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995'.
4. At this juncture, it was submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that considering the fact that the implementation of
the petitioner-company's Regulations of 1994 was to be carried
out w.e.f. 01.04.1994, the petitioner-company entered into a
dialogue with the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
regarding the compliance and modalities for the grant of
exemption from the Pension Scheme of 1995, as introduced by the
Central Government. Subsequently, taking into account the factum
of resistance and unrest from the employees of the petitioner-
company qua the Scheme of 1995 and after further considering
the fact of the probable implementation of the Regulations of
1994, subject to the examination by the Committee formed by the
Board of Directors; the petitioner-company decided to avail the
benefit of Paragraph 39 of the Scheme of 1995, which provides
establishments exemptions from the operation of the Pension
Scheme of 1995. Therefore, relying upon the benefit envisioned in
Paragraph 39, the petitioner-company did not make contributions
to the pension fund.
5. Thereafter, since there was a delay occurring in the
finalization of the Pension Regulations of 1994, which were to take
effect from 01.04.1994; vide communication dated 23.12.1996, it
was suggested by the P.F. Authorities that the amount of pension
contribution be remitted to the pension fund by the petitioner-
company and the same would be refunded, subject to the grant of
exemption under Paragraph 39 of the Pension Scheme of 1995. In
light of the said suggestion, the petitioner-company deposited the
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (4 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
due amount on 23.12.1996. Moreover, upon a finalization of the
Regulations of 1994, the petitioner-company submitted an
application under Paragraph 39 of the Scheme of 1995, for grant
of exemption from the Pension Scheme of 1995, in lieu of the
Regulations of 1994, as formulated by the petitioner-company.
However, vide letter dated 11.04.1997, the said exemption
application was rejected on the ground that the Regulations of
1994 were deemed to be less favourable to the employees when
juxtaposed with the Pension Scheme of 1995. Thereafter, on
19.02.2003, the erstwhile RSMDC was amalgamated into the
petitioner-company. Subsequently, on 28.10.2004, summons were
issued under Section 14B of the Act of 1952, in the name of
Managing Director (RSMDC) wherein it was inter-alia alleged that
the RSMDC had failed to remit the amount of P.F. Contribution
charges, within the stipulated due date. In light of the said
summons, necessary details/explanation was called from the
petitioner-company. On 17.01.2005, a representative of the
petitioner-company attended the inquiry conducted against the
company and vide letter dated 15.01.2005, apprised the
respondents regarding the fact of amalgamation of the companies
w.e.f. 20.02.2003 and submitted that the erstwhile RSMDC had
been regularly complying with the provisions of the Act and
accordingly, submitting its dues.
6. In this background, on 06.06.2006, respondent no.2 issued a
letter dated 18.05.2006 along with a statement showing the
amount due on part of the petitioner-company under Section 14B
of the Act for the period from March 1995 to August 2002, which
was quantified to the tune of Rs. 6,09,117/- as damages under
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (5 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
Section 14B and interest @ Rs. 21,768/- under Section 7Q of the
Act. In response, the petitioner-company submitted its reply vide
letter dated 13.07.2006, advancing its bonafides and genuineness
in light of the fact that the damages for the period between
December 1995 to February 1997 would not be applicable to the
petitioner-company on account of the fact that the delay, as made
out by the respondents, came into existence on account of the
fact that the Pension Regulations of 1994 were not approved by
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the application
filed under Paragraph 39 was rejected. Therefore, the inadvertent
delay was caused under unavoidable circumstances. Hence, it was
contended that the intentions of the petitioner-company were
bonafide, as is reflected from the fact that when there was a delay
on their part in finalizing the Pension Regulations of 1994, the
petitioner-company on their own accord, started depositing the
statutory contributions in the year 1996. Therefore, the authorities
below have passed legally unsustainable order(s), without taking
into consideration the bonafide intentions of the petitioner-
company and overlooking the relevant facts and circumstances of
the case. Hence, the orders dated 19.02.2010 and 04.08.2006 are
liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the impugned order(s) have been passed in
accordance with law, after due application of mind and
consideration of the relevant facts and law applicable. He has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No(s). 2136/2012 titled as Horticulture Experiment
Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v/s The Regional Provident Fund
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (6 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
Organization wherein it was held that any default or delay in the
payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a
sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B
of the Act of 1952. Furthermore, learned counsel has also
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Horticulture
Experiment (Supra) has taken into consideration the three
Judge Bench judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs.
Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors. reported in (2008)
13 SCC 369 and has held that mens rea is not an essential
element for imposing penalty/damages in civil obligations and
liabilities. Lastly, in support of his contentions, learned counsel
relied upon Rule 32B of the Employee Provident Funds Scheme
1952, which is reproduced hereinunder:-
32B. Terms and conditions for reduction or
waiver of damages:-
The Central Board may reduce or waive the damages
levied under section 14B of the Act in relation to an
establishment specified in the second proviso to
section 14B, subject to the following terms and
conditions, namely: --
(a) in case of a change of management including
transfer of the undertaking to workers' co-operative
and in case of merger or amalgamation of the sick
industrial company with any other industrial
company, complete waiver of damages may be
allowed;
(b) in cases where the Board for Industrial and
Financial Reconstruction, for reasons to be recorded
in its schemes, in this behalf recommends, waiver of
damages up to 100 per cent may be allowed;
(c) in other cases, depending on merits, reduction of
damages up to 50 per cent may be allowed."
8. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that in terms of
Rule 32B, the petitioner-company falls under the statutory ambit
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (7 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
of Sub-rule (c). Therefore, as per the mandate of the said Rule, it
is only the Central Board which, depending upon the merits of a
case, can reduce or waive the damages imposed under Section
14B, to an upper limit of 50% only. Hence, after duly taking into
consideration the factual matrix of the case and the application of
the relevant law, the Appellate Tribunal as well as the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner have passed well-reasoned orders,
strictly in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the both the sides, scanned the record of the case and
perused the judgment(s) cited at Bar.
10. In the case at hand, the following facts warrant germane
consideration, for the fair and efficacious adjudication of the
matter:
10/1. That the petitioner-company is a State instrumentality,
being a Government-Company having 100 per cent equity of the
State.
10/2. That the petitioner-company introduced a pension scheme
for the benefit of its employees, titled as 'RSMDC Ltd. Employee's
Pension Regulations, 1994'. However, while the said regulations
were being finalized, the Central Government introduced the
Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995. Accordingly, the petitioner-
company applied for exemption under Paragraph 39 of the
Scheme of 1995, which came to be operational from 16.11.1995.
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (8 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
10/3. That since delay was occurring in the finalization of the
Pension Regulations of 1994, which were to take effect from
01.04.1994, it was suggested by the P.F. Authorities that the
amount of pension contribution be remitted to the pension fund by
the petitioner-company and the same shall be refunded on the
grant of exemption from the Scheme of 1995. Accordingly, the
amount due was deposited on 23.12.1996, under the belief that
the amount will be refunded if the exemption is granted.
10/4. However, the said application for exemption filed under
Paragraph 39 of the Scheme of 1995 was rejected on 11.04.1997.
11. On a perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is observed that
the petitioner-company had been regularly complying with the
provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Schemes applicable thereto
and had further been depositing their statutory contributions in a
timely manner towards the Pension Scheme. Moreover, they also
co-operated with the Department upon the initiation of inquiry
against the petitioner-company under Section 14B of the Act of
1952. The bonafides of the petitioner-company are further
established by the fact that when there was a delay in the
finalization of the Pension Regulations of 1994, the petitioner-
company on their own accord, started depositing their statutory
contributions, under the genuine belief that the amount shall be
refunded to the company if the exemption, as prayed for under
Paragraph 39, is granted. Therefore, in the above background,
having established the bonafides of the petitioner-company, the
central point of consideration which arises in the instant matter is-
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (9 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
"Whether in the light of the provisions of Section
14B of the Act of 1952, the levy and imposition of
damages is mandatory or not and whether the same
encapsulates the requirement of mens rea on part of
the petitioner-company to evade their statutory
obligations towards the provident fund or pension
scheme as a pre-requisite to such imposition
of/damages?"
12. Before adverting to the adjudication of the issue framed
herein-above, it would be appropriate for this Court to reproduce
the relevant provisions necessary for its due consideration, herein-
under:
"14B. Power to recover damages.--Where an
employer makes default in the payment of any
contribution to the Fund [the (Pension) Fund or the
Insurance 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] or in the payment of any charges
payable under any other provision of this Act or of
[any Scheme or Insurance Scheme] or under any
of the conditions specified under section 17, [the
Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other
officer as may be authorised by the Central
Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
in this behalf] "may recover" [from the
employer by way of penalty such damages,
not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may
be specified in the Scheme:]
[Provided that before levying and recovering such
damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard]:
[Provided further that the Central Board may
reduce or waive the damages levied under this
section in relation to an establishment which is a
sick industrial company and in respect of which a
scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by
the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction established under section 4 of the
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
1985, subject to such terms and conditions as may
be specified in the Scheme.]
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (10 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
32B. Terms and conditions for reduction or
waiver of damages:-
The Central Board "may reduce or waive" the
damages levied under section 14B of the Act in
relation to an establishment specified in the second
proviso to section 14B, subject to the following terms
and conditions, namely: --
(a) in case of a change of management including
transfer of the undertaking to workers' co-operative
and in case of merger or amalgamation of the sick
industrial company with any other industrial
company, complete waiver of damages may be
allowed;
(b) in cases where the Board for Industrial and
Financial Reconstruction, for reasons to be recorded
in its schemes, in this behalf recommends, waiver of
damages up to 100 per cent may be allowed;
(c) in other cases, depending on merits,
reduction of damages up to 50 per cent may be
allowed."
13. In a bid to settle the central issue framed herein-above, it is
imperative to peruse the judgment cited by the learned counsel
for the respondent in the case of Horticulture Experiment
(Supra), wherein reliance has also been placed upon the Apex
Court decision in Dharmendra Textiles (Supra). While placing
reliance upon the said judgment, it has been considerably argued
by the respondents that mens rea or actus reus are not essential
elements for the imposition of penalty or damages for breach of
civil obligations and liabilities. Learned counsel, in particular,
placed reliance upon the following extract from the said judgment,
which is reproduced below:
"15. It may be noticed that Dilip N. Shroff (supra)
on which reliance was placed has been overruled by
this Court in Union of India and Others v.
Dharmendra Textile Processors and others
(supra). For the aforesaid reasons, the view
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (11 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
expressed by this Court in Employees State
Insurance Corporation (supra) may not be binding
precedent on the subject and of no assistance to the
appellant(s).
17. Taking note of three-Judge Bench judgment of
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v.
Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors.
(supra), which is indeed binding on us, we are of
the considered view that any default or delay in the
payment of EPF contribution by the employer under
the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of
damages Under Section 14B of the Act 1952 and
mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element
for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil
obligations/liabilities."
14. On the other hand, in order to set forth and establish the
requirement of mens rea on part of an establishment to evade
their statutory obligation, thereby warranting the imposition of
penalty under Section 14B of the Act of 1952, learned counsel for
the petitioner has extensively relied upon the celebrated judgment
of the Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. The State
of Orissa reported in 1970 SCR (1) 753. In particular, emphasis
has been laid on the said extract from the said judgment, which is
reproduced herein-under:
7. Under the Act penalty may be imposed for
failure to register as a dealer : Section 9(1) read
with Section 25(1)(a) of the Act. But the liability
to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of
default in registering as a dealer.
An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out
a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-
criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily
be imposed unless the party obliged either acted
deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of
conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in
conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will
not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to
do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:49 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (12 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
failure to perform a statutory obligation is a
matter of discretion of the authority to be
exercised judicially and on a consideration of all
the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum
penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to
impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to
impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial
breach of the provisions of the Act or where the
breach flows from a bona fide belief that the
offender is not liable to act in the manner
prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the
affairs of the Company in failing to register the
Company as a dealer acted in the honest and
genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer.
Granting that they erred, no case for imposing
penalty was made out.
15. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner has also
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Organo
Chemical Industries & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.:(1997)
4 SCC 573; Bharat Heavy Vehicles vs. P.F. Commissioner:
AIR 1994 SC 1175 and Employees State Insurance
Corporation vs. HMT Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1322.
While placing reliance upon the said judgments, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that in situations where there is
absence on part of an establishment to deliberately evade their
statutory obligations and especially in situations, where the delay
so caused was on account of bonafide reasons, the imposition of
damages upon the establishment is completely unjustified. In light
of the same, it was also argued that considering the factum of
non-establishment of an intentional attempt to evade the payment
of the petitioner-company's statutory dues coupled with the fact of
delay caused on account of a bonafide belief arising from the
exemption application so filed under Paragraph 39, the imposition
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (13 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
of penalty by the concerned authorities was wholly unjustified and
misconceived in the eyes of the settled position of the law.
16. Having comprehensively considered the judgments cited by
the learned counsel for both the sides on the issue framed herein-
above, it is observed that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in M/s Hindustan Steel (Supra) is squarely applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. Whereas, the
applicability of the judgment(s) cited by the learned counsel for
the respondent is not met out in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. The holdings in the case of Horticulture
Experiment (Supra) and Dharmendra Textiles (Supra) are
distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, on the following
grounds:
16/1. The ground for delay caused in the payment of the
statutory obligations in Horticulture Experiment (Supra) were
distinct from the facts and circumstances of the instant matter
insofar as the establishment i.e. Horticulture Experiment Station,
was not a State instrumentality unlike the petitioner-company.
Moreover, contrary to the facts of the present matter qua the
deposition of dues by the petitioner-company in the Pension Fund
and the factum of the application for exemption filed by them, the
Horticulture Experiment Company had neither fulfilled its
obligation to deposit monies in the Pension Fund and nor had they
applied for an exemption of any sort, which could have
inadvertently caused them to fumble in timely paying their dues
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (14 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
as required under the Act of 1952 and the corresponding Rules
framed therewith.
16/2. In the case of Dharmendra Textile (Supra) as relied
upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Horticulture Experiment
(Supra), while considering the provision of Section 11AC of the
Central Excise Act, 1944, it was held that the levy of penalty
under the said provision was mandatory, as the legislature had
used the words "assessee shall be liable" ('shall' being the
keyword), which leaves no room for discretion on part of the
authorities. Furthermore, the provision of Section 11AC
encapsulates the inter play of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-
statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any other
provisions of the Act, with an intent to evade the payment of duty.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the question of mens rea or
intent will not act as a hindrance as the adjudicating authority has
not been provided any discretion to levy duty less than what is
legally and statutorily leviable. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and upon the analysis of
Section 14B of the Act of 1952, it is observed that the legislature
has used the words "may recover" ('may' being the keyword),
which leaves ample of room for the authorities to exercise their
discretion in imposing the penalty by way of damages. Therefore,
in such circumstances, the requirement of mens rea may be
incorporated while adjudicating upon the issue of the imposition of
damages, subject to the bonafides of the defaulting party. At the
same time, Section 14B of the Act of 1952, unlike Section 11AC of
Central Excise Act, 1944 does not provide for the presence of
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (15 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement, thereby warranting
the mandatory imposition of penalty. Hence, Section 14B provides
for discretion to be exercised by the Authorities in assessing a
case for the imposition of a penalty. Furthermore, even as per
Rule 32B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the
Central Board has been empowered to reduce the damages up to
the upper limit of 50%, depending upon the merits of the case;
thereby, implying the availability of the discretion to be exercised
by the concerned authorities in the imposition of
penalty/damages.
16/3. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the Apex Court
judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning &
Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448 wherein it was
categorically held that the decision in Dharmendra Textile
(supra) must be understood to mean that, though the application
of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of
the conditions expressly stated in the Section, once the Section is
applicable in a case, the Authority concerned would have no
discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed
equal to the duty determined under Sub-section (2) of Section
11A. More importantly, it was also clarified that the decision in
Dharmendra Textile (supra) is applicable only insofar as
Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is concerned and not
other statutory provisions, as provided under the law. It is also
pertinent to note that the finding in the judgment of Rajasthan
Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) was not taken into
consideration while passing the judgment in the case of
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM)
[2023/RJJP/001668] (16 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
Horticulture Experiment (supra), as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
17. Accordingly, in the case at hand, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Steel (Supra), wherein the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of the law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. It was further held that penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. In this regard, it was analyzed that whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall be justified in refusing to impose said penalty, if it is satisfied that there was a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the said breach flew from the bonafide belief that the offender was not liable to act in the manner as prescribed by the statute. Furthermore, the aforementioned judgment of Hindustan Steel (supra), passed by a Larger Bench, was not considered while passing the judgment in Horticulture Experiment (supra). Therefore, the latter is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant matter, for the reasons stated herein-above.
(D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM) [2023/RJJP/001668] (17 of 18) [CW-4810/2010]
18. At the risk of repetition, it is observed that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner-company did not act in a mala fide manner in deliberately trying to disregard their obligations to timely submit their dues towards the Pension Fund, as is reflected from the fact that when there was a delay in the finalization of the Pension Regulations of 1994, the petitioner-company on their own accord, started depositing the statutory contributions. Moreover, the petitioner-company was under the genuine belief that the said amount will be refunded if the exemption, as sought under Paragraph 39, is granted to them. Therefore, it can be conclusively stated that those in charge of the affairs of the Company qua the payment of dues acted in honest and genuine belief that the petitioner-company shall be granted an exemption, as sought for. It is trite that the breach on part of the petitioner-company did not flow from deliberate defiance of the law. Hence, despite granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty is made out against the petitioner-company.
19. It is noteworthy that all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof, so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. The words of a provision must be construed with some imagination of the purpose and object of the legislation altogether. Accordingly, the provision of Section 14B explicitly employs the term "may" recover, which when read with the corresponding Rule 32B, further cements the discretion provided to the authorities vide the Act of (D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM) [2023/RJJP/001668] (18 of 18) [CW-4810/2010] 1952 and their corresponding Rules, to exercise their discretion in imposing penalty and/or reduce it thereof.
20. Therefore, in light of the observations made herein-above and considering the fact that the delay so caused by the petitioner-company was on account of a bonafide and genuine error, for which a sufficient explanation was thereby provided, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside the order(s) dated 19.02.2010 and 04.08.2006, passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, respectively. Furthermore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 are held to be untenable.
21. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/90 (D.B. SAW/547/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:44:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)