Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 14 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Employees' State Insurance ... vs Hmt Ltd on 9 January, 2012
19.It is also seen that the Apex Court in the decision reported in
(2008) 3 S.C.C.35, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. HMT Ltd., has
found that such penal provision is discretionary and the existence of mens
rea or actus is a necessary ingredient. The relevant paragraphs 21 to 27 are
extracted hereunder:
Mcleod Russel India Limited Co. & Ors vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 23 July, 2013
3. This issue is now wholly covered against the appellants in the
decision rendered by this Court in Mcleod Russel India Limited Vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri and Others, reported in (2014) 15 SCC
263, wherein it has been held in paragraph 11 that ".....the presence or
absence of mens rea and/or actus reus would be a determinative factor in
imposing damages under Section 14-B, as also the quantum thereof since it is
not inflexible that 100 per cent of the arrears have to be imposed in all the
cases. Alternatively stated, if damages have been imposed under Section 14-B,
it will be only logical that mens rea and/or actus reus was prevailing at the
relevant time."
Section 7A in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 7Q in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs Sree Visalam Chit Funds Ltd on 1 November, 2010
To attract section 14B to levy damages, the liability cannot be fixed
automatically without there being a specific finding that failure to pay the
contribution was attributable to the 'mens rea' or 'actus reus' on the part
of the employer as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported
in 2010 (4) LLN 706, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Employees'
Provident Fund Organisation Madurai v. Sree Visalam Chit Funds Ltd. ...
M/S. Prestolite Of India Ltd. vs The Regional Director And Another on 7 October, 1993
22.In Prestolite (India) Ltd. v. Regional Director, 1994 Supp (3) SCC
690:1995 SCC (L&S) 202, this Court rejected a contention raised by the
Regional Director of Employees' Insurance that under the Employees' State
Insurance General Regulations guidelines have been indicated showing as to
how damages for delayed payment are to be imposed and since such guidelines
have been followed, no exception should be taken thereto made to the impugned
adjudication, stating:(SCC p.693, para 5)
"5.....Even if the regulations have prescribed general guidelines and
the upper limits at which the imposition of damages can be made, it cannot be
contended that in no case, the mitigating circumstances can be taken into
consideration by the adjudicating authority in finally deciding the matter
and it is bound to act mechanically in applying the uppermost limit of the
table. In the instant case, it appears to us that the order has been passed
without indicating any reason whatsoever as to why grounds for delayed
payment were not to be accepted. There is no indication as to why the
imposition of damages at the rate specified in the order was required to be
made. Simply because the appellant did not appear in person and produce
materials to support the objections, the employee's case could not be
discarded in limine. On the contrary, the objection ought to have been
considered on merits."