IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9446 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 13, 2011. M/s The Sirsa Jagdamba Colony Co-op. Labour & Construction Society Ltd. .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Chandok, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Chiranjee Lal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a micro level co-operative society registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The paramount object of the petitioner-society is to arrange manual or semi skilled labour for carrying out the constructions activities for the public institutions or to arrange labour for Milk Unions for carrying milk etc. The petitioner-society had a dispute with the Milk Union, Sirsa regarding certain claims including the administrative charges. Those disputes were referred to the Arbitrator who vide Awards dated 3.11.2009 (Annexures P-5 & P-6), partly accepted the claim of the petitioner-society. CWP No.9446 of 2010 [2] Due to the non-availability of the funds, the petitioner-society meanwhile could not deposit its share towards the Employees Provident Fund on time. Suffice it to mention that a sum of approximately Rs.30 lacs was due in December, 2001 which was deposited in February, 2006 only. Besides the interest/penal interest of Rs.205046/-, the respondent-Authorities under the Employees Provident Fund Act, have imposed the damages to the tune of Rs.22,00,252/- on the petitioner-society, prompting it to approach this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. In my considered view, the action of the respondent- Authorities in imposing the 'damages' is wholly unfair and unjust for more than one reasons. The Authorities have proceeded on an erroneous premise that it was a case of willful or deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner- society in depositing the due statutory amount. On the other hand, the petitioner has been vigorously pleading that due to non-receipt of payments from the principal employer, namely, the milk union that the delay was caused which was suitably compensated by paying statutory interest under the Act. The above stated plea has been substantiated by placing on record the details of the payment recovered by the petitioner-society from the milk union, Sirsa through the arbitration proceedings. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner-society could not deposit the due amount in time for the reason beyond its control. While the petitioner cannot be absolved of its liability CWP No.9446 of 2010 [3] under the Act to pay the due amount with interest, the damages can not be imposed on it mechanically even if there is no willful or deliberate attempt to delay the deposits. For the reasons afore-stated the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders are hereby quashed to the extent of imposition of 'damages' on the petitioner-society. It is directed that the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner-society towards damages, shall be refunded or adjusted against future liabilities. Dasti. October 13, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE