Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 472 (1.78 seconds)
Documents citing Organo Chemical Industries & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 July, 1979

M/S. Elsons Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commission, ... on 30 June, 1998

In M/s Organo Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), their Lordships held that while fixing the amount of damages, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall take into consideration various factors, viz. number of defaults, the period of delay, the amount involved etc. Similarly, their Lordships held that the factors like financial difficulties faced by the employer due to strike of the employees or otherwise cannot be made ground for relieving the employer of its obligation to deposit the employees share as well as its own share of contributions as required by the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. Thus, the exercise of dis-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - S Saksena - Full Document

Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. (Now Known ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 June, 2005

9.5. It is difficult to accept a proposition that the provision of Section 17B would not extend to Section 14B despite the damages imposable thereunder being other sum due under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as, despite being other person and not being an employer when the liability accrued, the other person by fiction is put into the shoes of the employer liable jointly and severally. The distinction sought to be introduced to put the transferor employer and the other person, the transferee on different footing, does not seem to be correct. Such an interpretation seems to be directly opposed to the object and purpose of the creation of the fictions and contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1803 and Sayaji Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, . The scheme of Section 17B fastens the liability for the period till the date of transfer, for which the transferor was solely liable until the transfer, upon the transferee, the other person as well on transfer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 21 - D K Seth - Full Document

Ttg Industries Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 19 September, 2014

Here, we find that, it is not a case of total omission to make the contributions. There had been only delayed contributions. The periods are different and the days of delay are also different. A glance at the statement of damages, annexed to the impugned proceedings, shows that the day of delay range from a minimum of 7 days to a maximum of 47 days, but, a flat rate of 25% has been adopted by the 1st respondent; and certainly, we cannot commend the impugned proceedings on the ground that the application of the norms, as set down by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, referred to above, has been done. This only exposes lack of application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S. Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited on 13 September, 2022

12. The two-Judge Bench decision in Organo Chemical Industries vs Union of India, makes 21 compelling reading not only because of the contrasting styles of two of our illustrious predecessors; A.P. Sen, J for his erudite, efficient and precise exposition of the law and V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. for his elegance of expression and verve impregnated with humanism and compassion. Organo involved a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Constitutional vires of Section 14B of the EPF Act. The contention was that the default of the employer/establishment was not wilful, rendering inappropriate the imposition of damages of a penal nature; and since the computation of damages was left totally unguided and untrammelled, violation of Article 14 was plainly and expectedly obvious. The Court while upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 14B held that the raison d'etre for the introduction of Section 14B (by Act 40 of 1973) was to deter and thwart employers from defaulting in forwarding contributions to the Funds, most often with the ulterior motive of misutilizing not only their own but also the employees' contributions. Section 14B originally restricted damages to 25 per cent of the withheld amounts which, having been found to be 22 ineffectual for the attainment to the objectives of the Act, was increased to a sum "not exceeding the amount of arrears". This Court also interred the division or dichotomy of opinions flowing from differing decisions of different High Courts by clarifying that the word "damages" has been employed in this dispensation to mean penalty on recalcitrant employers as well as reparation for loss caused to the Fund. The Court stoutly repelled the contention that damages were merely compensatory in nature and, therefore, should not exceed the interest that would have accrued in favour of the Funds had the contributions been diligently dispatched to the Funds.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G Narendar - Full Document

M/S Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 23 February, 2021

Further, as laid down in the case of Organo Chemical Industries and Another v. Union of India and Others (Supra) read with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) that even in case of delay there cannot be waiver of any amount under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952, rather the provision has been made by way of a deterrent measure so that the default may not be repeated and if such relaxation would be given by the court of law, as is being sought for, the same would
Jharkhand High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Ansal Housing & Construction Limited vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 23 May, 2019

55. However, in the instant case as already observed hereinabove, the inspection note of the inspection conducted between 16.02.2006 to 18.02.2006 categorically reflected that there were 531 identified employees who had been engaged by the petitioner through contractors who had not been covered under the EPF Act and that the PF dues deposited by the petitioner and the contractors were not commensurate with the salary/wages disbursed by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, it is held that the facts of the instant case are not in pari materia with the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. V. Union of India", "Organo Chemical Industries V. Union of India", "Employees State Insurance Corporation V. HMT Ltd. and Anr" & "Summer Fields School V. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner".
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

National Textile Corpn. (Madhya ... vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. And ... on 30 September, 1996

"6. An identical expression occurring in Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came up for construction before the Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. v. Union of India and Others. The expression used in that provision is damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as it may think fit to impose. The Supreme Court while rejecting the challenge to the vires of the - provision on the ground that it conferred arbitrary and unfettered power, indicated its true import. It has been held that the power to impose damages is a quasi-judicial function, the discretion to award damages could be exercised within the limits fixed by the Statute, and in view of the punitive nature of the power, the order must be a 'speaking order' containing the reasons in support of it. The Supreme Court also pointed out that while fixing the amount of damages, the authority takes into con-sideration all the relevant factors and the word 'damages' lays down sufficient guide lines for the levy of damages. Referring to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court it was reiterated that the determination of damages is not 'an inflexible application of a rigid fomula' and the words 'as it may think fit to impose' show that the authority is required to apply its mind to the facts of the case. It was for these reasons that challenge to vires of the provision was repelled. This decision of the Supreme Court construing an identical provision applies to the present case with full force and it must be held that the requirements of an order made under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act are the same."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next