Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)
Central Board Of Trustees, Epf Thr Apfc vs M/S Glade Drugs & Nutraceutircals Pvt ... on 19 May, 2025 cites

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Limited on 11 September, 2013

"10. The question of imposition of damages and interest pursuant to amendment of Section 14B and the introduction of section 7Q was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Corporation v Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. It was held that during the pre-amendment stage, what was contemplated by the statutory provision was recovery of damages for default committed by an employer in payment of any contribution to the fund. After the amendment to Section 14B and after introduction of 7Q, Section 14B provided for recovery by way of penalty, such damages not exceeding any arrears as may be specified in the scheme. The compensatory element was thus taken away from the scope and ambit of Section 14B and the penalty element was retained. The said amount was liable to be recovered as damages. The legislature, however, alertly included Section 7Q making the employer liable to pay simple interest at 12% per annum or at specified higher rates from the date on which the amount became due, till its actual payment. The wisdom of the legislature is self evident, since Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(C) 3528/2016 Page 4 of 18 Signing Date:23.05.2025 15:54:31 before amendment of Section 14B, absolute discretion was conferred on the authorised officer either to impose penalty or not to impose at all; in the latter even of which there would be no compensation at all provided to the organisation, which would be mulcted with the liability of interest to the employee from the date of actual dues. It was further held that the liability of payment of interest was not to be left to the discretion of the authorised officer since it does not call for any adjudication and accrual of interest in the employees account is liable to be compensated by the employer who caused the delay. It was held that 7Q is imposed automatically, on any delay, without any reference to mitigating circumstances; but with reference only to the period of delay and the rates specified. Even the previous and subsequent contact of the employer in making proper remittance of contribution will not be relevant in imposition of interest under Section 7Q. In other words, Sections 14 B and 7Q operate in different fields and have different purposes and objects. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel that the imposition of interest under Section 7Q will depend on the quantum of penal damages levied under Section 14B of the Act has no basis."
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - C V Rehim - Full Document

Gaurav Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 August, 2021

28. Though the facts in this matter may be similar, in that the order was also passed on the same date, under Section 14B and Section 7Q, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(C) 3528/2016 Page 17 of 18 Signing Date:23.05.2025 15:54:31 considering that judgment in Gaurav Enterprises (supra) has been stayed, the Court is bound by the precedent and, therefore, is persuaded by reliance of petitioner on Arcot Textile Mills (supra). Therefore, any order passed under Section 7Q remains unappealable under Section 7I.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next