IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10472 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010. M/s Food Corporation of India .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mrs.Madhu P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) This writ petition, at the instance of the Food Corporation of India, seeks quashing of the orders dated 13.9.2007 & 4.3.2010 (Annexures P-6, P-7 & P-11 respectively) whereby the petitioner- Corporation has been directed to pay the amount of penal damages in respect of the labourers engaged by it in its hired godowns during the period from February, 1995 to February, 1999. In addition, the interest in terms of Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') and penalty has been imposed and the petitioner's appeal against the said assessment order too has been dismissed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. C.W.P.No .10472 of 2010 2 The impugned Appellate order reveals that the petitioner- Corporation did not dispute its liability to contribute towards the provident fund and it confines its relief qua the penalty and interest only on the plea that “due to non-furnishing of details of pay particulars of the labourer by the Union, there was a delay in contributing the provident fund.” The aforesaid plea has been turned down by the Appellate Authority after observing that the explanation tendered by the Corporation does not fall within the permissible parameters laid down in various judicial precedents for waiving off the penal damages. Vide order dated 28.5.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to inform this Court about the estimated amount of damages and penal interest levied vide the impugned orders. On instructions, learned counsel informs that should the penal damages calculated as per the Circular dated 29.5.1990 (Annexure P-8), issued by the office of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, the total liability would be approximately Rs.one lac only. She alternatively urges that a direction may be issued to the respondents to calculate the amount of damages and interest strictly as per the Circular aforesaid. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in discharging its statutory liability towards provident fund, has not been accepted by the Appellate Authority, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. As regard to the calculation of the penalty and interest in C.W.P.No .10472 of 2010 3 terms of respondents' own circular, there appears to be no reason to doubt that while calculating the actual amount of penalty and interest, the respondents shall be guided by their own circulars including dated 29.5.1990 (Annexure P-8). In case the petitioner finds that the penalty or interest has not been assessed in terms of the aforesaid circular, it shall be at liberty to submit objection(s) before the Competent Authority which shall consider the same in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. July 21, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE