The employee had been continously seeking a code number from the Commissioner so that the deposits of the provident fund contributions could be made with the Scheme. However, the Provident Fund authorities chose to ignore the requests made by the petitioner. Although the petitioner was entitled to avail of the infancy protection available under Section 16 of the Act, at that front of time out the petitioner sought to voluntarily cover its establishment right from 1984 i.e. three years after it was set up. Resqests made to the Commissioner to allot a code number from time to time went unheeded.
Had the code number been allotted to the petitioner immediatley after infacy period was complete, the peritioner would have deposited and remitted the provident fund contribution to the Scheme. Not having done so, the Provident fund authorities can not levy damages for their own negligence. The argument o f the Provident Fund authorities that in any case remittances should have been deposited, also can ot be accepted. This is because there would have been no definite account into which the deposits could have been made and interest earned on these amounts would not have been credited to the benefit of the petitioner’s employees . That being the position, the order under Section 14-B is unsustainble. The Provision under Section 14-B being penal in nature, it was all the more necessary for the P.F. Authorities to exercise caution before levying damges.
Had the code number been allotted to the petitioner immediatley after infacy period was complete, the peritioner would have deposited and remitted the provident fund contribution to the Scheme. Not having done so, the Provident fund authorities can not levy damages for their own negligence. The argument o f the Provident Fund authorities that in any case remittances should have been deposited, also can ot be accepted. This is because there would have been no definite account into which the deposits could have been made and interest earned on these amounts would not have been credited to the benefit of the petitioner’s employees . That being the position, the order under Section 14-B is unsustainble. The Provision under Section 14-B being penal in nature, it was all the more necessary for the P.F. Authorities to exercise caution before levying damges.
Poona Shims Pvt. Ltd. Vs B.P. Ramaiah, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. 2007 CLR 492 Bombay High Court
For any querry :-
09896868668
No comments:
Post a Comment