Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii. In the case of Mcleod Russel India Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri and Ors. reported in (2014) 15 SCC 263.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-EPFO has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition and stated that the provisions of the EPFO are beneficial in nature. That the impugned order is passed duly taking into account the provisions of Section 7Q and 14B of the Act. That insofar as the provisions of Section 7Q are concerned, the authorities does not have any option while calculating the interest for the delayed payment, that the provisions of the 7Q are mandatory in nature. Irrespective of the fact whether there were any laches on part of the petitioner or not, the authorities are bound to invoke the provisions of Section 7Q and impose the interest on the delayed payment. That the order passed by the authority is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity which warrants any interference by this Court. Further, learned counsel has stated that the petitioner having collected/ deducted the amounts from the home guards/ employees is bound to deposit the same before the authorities within the time. However, in this case the same was not done. Further, learned counsel has stated that the letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.848 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025 15.05.2020 issued by one of the officers of the respondent-

8. In order to appreciate and resolve the issue involved in the batch of writ petitions, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 more particularly Section 2E, 7A, 7Q, 14B which reads as under;

"Section 2E ["employer" means--

(i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and

9. A perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that insofar as levy of interest under Section 7Q is concerned, Patna High Court CWJC No.848 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025 the authority does not have any discretion, as the provisions are mandatory in nature. Once it is found that the organization is covered under the provisions of the Act, the organization is bound to deposit the provident contribution every month within the stipulated period. If there is any delay in depositing the said contribution the provisions of Section 7Q will automatically come into effect and the organization is bound to pay the interest for the delayed payment. In view of the same, the order passed under Section 7Q of the EPF Act dated 21.11.2022 is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order and the same is confirmed. The writ petition insofar as it relates to challenging the order passed under Section 7Q is dismissed.