Authority Imposing Damages Must Provide Detailed Reasoning For Penalties Under EPF Act: Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Industrial Tribunal's order that had set aside damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court held that authorities imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act must provide detailed reasoning and proper calculation...
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Industrial Tribunal's order that had set aside damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court held that authorities imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act must provide detailed reasoning and proper calculation of penalties. It found that the original order was arbitrary as it lacked proper reasoning and had imposed damages for periods when the school was an exempted establishment. The court ruled that the power to award damages under Section 14B is quasi-judicial in nature and must follow principles of natural justice.
Background
Aditya Birla Vani Bharti, a school, was an exempted establishment under Section 17 of the EPF & MP Act from March 1, 2005, to March 31, 2011. After the exemption period ended, there were proceedings regarding the transfer of funds from 2014. Subsequently, in 2016, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 14B of the Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He levied damages of Rs. 917,552 on the school for delayed payment of certain provident fund contributions.
The school appealed this order before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order; it found that the order was illegal and lacked any proper basis. The Tribunal noted that the APFC had mechanically imposed damages without considering any mitigating circumstances. Aggrieved, the Central Board of Trustees filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order.
Arguments
Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, representing the Central Board of Trustees, contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the damages imposed under Section 14B. He argued that the power to impose damages exists to ensure timely contribution to the provident fund, and that the Regional PF Commissioner had exercised this power correctly.
Mr. Arnab Dutt, representing Aditya Birla Vani Bharti, argued that the order imposing damages was arbitrary and mechanical. He argued that the imposition of damages under Section 14B is a quasi-judicial function that must follow principles of natural justice. He submitted that the order passed by the APFC failed to provide proper reasoning or calculation for the damages imposed. He also pointed out that damages were imposed for the period where the school was an 'exempted establishment', thereby making the order arbitrary.
Court's Reasoning
The court first examined the nature of powers conferred under Section 14B of the EPF Act. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Organo Chemicals Industries and Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. (1979 INSC 123), the court noted that the power to award damages is a quasi-judicial function; it must be exercised after giving the defaulter reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court ruled that an order under Section 14B must be a well-reasoned “speaking order”, and follow the rules of natural justice. Citing M/s. Hindustan Times Limited vs Union of India & Ors. (1998 INSC 6), the court summarised that “the authority under Section 14-B has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and the reply to the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order after following principles of natural justice”.
Examining the present case, the court found several deficiencies in the order imposing damages. Firstly, it did not contain any details as to how and why the damages was awarded, and no proper calculation had been shown. Secondly, damages were imposed from 2005 to 2011, despite the school being an 'exempted establishment' during that period.
Thus, the court concluded that the order imposing damages was “clearly arbitrary” and has been passed without proper reasons. Consequently, the court found that the Tribunal had rightly set it aside. Finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Decided on: 05.03.2025
Case No.: WPA 1945 of 2025 | Central Board of Trustees, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Regional Office Howrah v. The Registrar Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Anr.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Arnab Dutt