Mohammed Haneefa v. Union Of India And Others

1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ to quash exhibits P1 and P2. Exhibit P1 is a demand made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under S. 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. Exhibit P2 shows the amounts defaulted and interest on them. The challenge is based on the mechanical manner of calculation of the damage without taking into account the circumstances under which the petitioner could not make the payment in time.

2. The upper limit of interest chargeable is 25 per cent on the arrears. Exhibit P2 shows, that except in two cases interest is calculated at 25 per cent. It is now settled law, that in quantifying damages under S. 14B, the concerned authority has to pay due regard to the various circumstances under which the default was committed. The same petitioner had come before this Court earlier in Original Petition No. 2789 of 1967. Isaac, J., while disposing of the said writ petition, observed that it was not possible to discern from the chart, how the amount of damages was fixed. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the officer concerned to adjudicate afresh the quantum of damages payable by the petitioner after taking into account the relevant facts and giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3. The petitioner's counsel brought to my notice a Supreme Court decision in Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner v. J.P Lala & Sons [1976-I L.L.N 259], single Bench ruling of this Court in Bharath Plywoods and Timber Products (Private), Ltd. v. Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner [1977-I L.L.N 464] and a Mysore decision in R. Fernandes v. State of Mysore [A.I.R 1969 Mys. 196]. The principle enunciated in these decisions is that, while quantifying damages, regard should be had to the circumstances under which the default in question was committed. I do not think it necessary to consider the judgments mentioned above in detail. Suffice it to say that, exhibits P1 and P2 do not reflect the basis on which the percentage of interest was adopted in computing the damages payable. Exhibit P2 related to the period from April 1971 to April 1973. Therefore, reconsideration need be limited only to this period. I say so since according to the petitioner's counsel the damages come to more than Rs. 12,000. From exhibit P2 it is seen that under account I the amount payable is Rs. 4,214.10 and under account II, Rs. 97.15 I quash exhibits P1 and P2 and direct respondent 3 to quantify the damages afresh, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after examining all the circumstances that led to the default in question.

4. The petitioner's counsel contended that an amount of Rs. 1,200 for the period from April 1959 to November 1966, was also attempted to be collected from him. He relied upon the decision in Amin Chand v. State of Punjab [A.I.R 1965 Punj. 441], to plead that inaction on the part of the authority concerned, should not adversely affect the petitioner. If the petitioner was told in time about the default, he would not have repeated the default. The contention appears to be well-founded. But, the difficulty is, whether the amount mentioned above takes in the period with which we are concerned in exhibit P2. Obviously it does not. However, I would like to make it clear that, if the petitioner had made any payments towards the period in question also, credit will be given to such payment by respondent 3 when actual quantification is made pursuant to the direction contained in this judgment.

5. The original petition is disposed of as above. Respondent 3 is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible after giving a notice to the petitioner.