Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Apex Security And Detective Force Pvt. ... vs Central Board Of Trustees, Epf ... on 8 May, 2015
cites
M/S Hindustan Times Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 7 January, 1998
28. The opinion as reflected in the said order is in consonance with
the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in „M/s. Hindustan
Times Limited vs. Union of India & Others', (supra) and hence on
this ground too no fault can be imputed in the impugned order of
learned EPFAT, New Delhi.
Section 17 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Board Of Trustees, E.P.F. ... on 12 September, 2012
As already observed no scheme, rule or
regulation can nullify the provisions of Act. Therefore, in my opinion,
the reliance of the learned counsel of the petitioner on the notification
W.P.(C) No.2022/2011 Page 14 of 20
dated 29.03.1990 is misconceived. It seems that scheme was framed
taking note of maximum limit of damages being 25% so also the said
notification was issued including the rate of interest as payable under
Section 7Q of the EPF Act without considering the fact that by the
amendment of 1988 the maximum cap of damages under Section 14B
of the EPF Act was increased from 25% to 100%. The amendments as
discussed aforesaid, was not brought to the notice of this Court as
would be clear from perusal of the judgments of „System and
Stamping and Anr. vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal & Ors.', (supra) and „Roma Henny Security Services Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Central Board of Trustees, E.P.F. Organization Through
Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Delhi (North)‟, (supra). Hence in such
a situation it would not be proper to limit the applicability of Section
7Q of the EPF Act to cases where it has been levied alongwith the
damages under Section 14B of the said Act and to state therein that the
interest as provided under Section 7Q of the EPF Act is ingrained
under the order for damages as computed under Section 14B of the
said Act. Clearly, no fetters can be placed on the power of the
competent authority to pass an independent order for levy of damages
under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. Section 7Q of the EPF Act stands on
its own independent footing making a defaulter/employer, "liable to
pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such
higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from
him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so
due till the date of its actual payment".
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors on 26 September, 2008
This provision has
been made to secure just and humane conditions of work
as has been opined in Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Limited and
others[13]. The language employed in Section 7Q
provides for levy of interest on delayed payment and the
rates have been stipulated. When a composite order is
passed or order imposing interest becomes a part of the
order or levy in any of the provisions of the Act the
authority grants a reasonable opportunity of hearing to
the employer/affected party.