Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sica in Ttg Industries Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 19 September, 2014Matching Fragments
28. In the result, I am of the view that the provisions of Section 22(1) of the S.I.C.A., 1985 would not be of any assistance to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case, having regard to the nature of the payments required to be made by way of provident fund and other contributions under the E.P.F. Act. 1952. I do not find any substance in the present Petition which is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(v) a decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sarvaraya Textiles Limited vs. Commissioner, Employees, reported in 2002 (1) ALD 705 17. The provisions of EPF Act, in particular, the contributions of the employees towards PF, in our opinion, would not come within the purview of Section 22(1) of SICA. The provident fund and other dues payable under EPF Act, 1952, are part of the legitimate statutory settlements of the workers. The employer is obligated to pay the contribution of the employees as well as its own contribution to the Fund, which is set up under the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. The employer is under a statutory obligation to deduct the amounts specified under the scheme from the salary of employees and in terms of the said scheme is required to deposit the said amount within 15 days. The deductions made by the employer are the earnings of the employees. Under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the employer is required to file monthly returns. Can the petitioner, in the aforementioned situation, refuse to comply with the statutory mandate to pay the contribution made by the employees as also its share, which was by way of social security scheme? The answer to the said question must be rendered in negative. Although the object of SICA is laudable but, in our view, the same should not deprive the hard earnings of the employees. It does not and cannot stay recovery proceedings to which the employees are entitled to by way of social security scheme. The money does not belong to the company. It belongs to the employees. Such amounts having been collected from the wages of the employees, the appellant was required to remit the same to the Fund together with its contribution in accordance with the scheme and the failure to deposit the same would attract payment of damages and other penal consequences as provided under Section 14-B of the Act. Initiation of proceedings for damages in terms of Section 14-B are quasi criminal in nature.
27. Para 32 of the EPF scheme, as noticed hereinbefore, has a direct bearing on Section 14-B of EPF Act. Under Para 32-B of EPF Act, the Central Board may allow waiver of damages up to 100 per cent but such waiver can be allowed only upon recommendations made by the BIFR in their scheme wherefor the BIFR was required to record reasons for the same.
37. We, are therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of Section 22(1) of SICA have no application to the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the provisions of EPF Act and the dues under the EPF Act does not fall within the purview of Section 22(1) SICA. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to take recourse to coercive steps for recovery of the dues towards the employees' share of contribution.
36. On behalf of some of the intervenors, an alternative submission was advanced that even assuming that the provisions of Section 22(1) of the SICA are inapplicable to the contribution of the employees or employer, the provisions for levy of interest on delayed payments and the administrative charges as well as recovery of damages under Section 14-B is covered by Section 22(1) of the SICA. The submission is devoid of any substance. The levy of interest for delayed payment as well as the administrative charges are very much part of provident fund under the scheme framed under the EPF Act. As far as damages under Section 14-B is concerned, it would be open for a sick industrial company to request the authorities under the EPF Act, to postpone the determination of damages till the reference is finally decided by the BIFR and or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. In case such a request is made, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the provision of Section 14-B of the EPF Act. We may hasten to add that the issue of damages is not involved in any of the matters which have been placed before us.
27. The learned Single Judge, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that no scheme had been framed by the BIFR as also taking note of the failure of the appellant to avail appeal remedy, by placing reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Salem and another, reported in 2006 (4) LLN, 441, dismissed the writ petition, by holding as follows:
9. This itself shows that there was no worthful scheme framed by the BIFR for the last six years and the petitioner is attempting to use the SICA Act as the rules for dodging payment of damages, which is a lawful requirement under the provisions of the Act. Further, the petitioner had not moved the Tribunal challenging the demand of damages and the case pleaded by the petitioner do not come within the exception provided under Section 14-B of the Act. Already, a Full Bench of this Court in dealing with protection under Section 22 of the SICA Act negatived the claim of the employer regarding the impunity granted therein vide its judgment in GOWRI SPINNING MILLS (P) Ltd. vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SALEM AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 (4) LLN 441.