THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.28495 OF 2011 ORDER: It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a further sum of approximately Rs.19 lacs is still due and payable towards damages imposed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Deputy Director (Recovery) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for waiver of penal damages on 23- 09-2011, is clearly unsustainable in view of the revival scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. But however, when the learned counsel for the petitioner’s attention has been drawn to the order passed by the BIFR in Case No.140 of 2002, in the reference made by the petitioner itself, it was noted that the net worth of the Company has exceeded its accumulated losses and hence, it has turned positive as on 30-06-2007 and in view of this development, reference made by the petitioner in terms of Section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is dropped. However, the BIFR, with a view to revive the Company, directed the Statutory Authorities to reconsider waiver of penal interest and damages on the dues paid / payable by the Company, up to 30-03-2008. In the context of this order, from the second proviso to section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, it becomes very clear that waiver of damages can be considered only if a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the BIFR, subject to such terms and conditions that may be specified in the said scheme of revival. In the instant case, no scheme of revival has been sanctioned by the BIFR. During the currency of the reference, the net worth of the company has improved dramatically and it has exceeded the accumulated losses. Consequently, its net worth has become positive. In the absence of any sanctioned revival scheme, the question of granting waiver under the second Proviso to Section 14-B of the 1952 Act, does not arise. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that each month, the petitioner will undertake to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac towards payment of penal damages imposed. Subject to the writ petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1 lac on or before 15th of each succeeding month, commencing from November 2011, towards penal damages, no further coercive steps be taken against the petitioner by the respondents. If the petitioner commits any default in depositing these arrears for any two consecutive months, it will be open to the respondents to give effect to the Provisions of the Act and proceed against the writ petitioner without any further reference to this Court, but not otherwise. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Provident Fund Organization. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 21st October 2011