IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18058 of 2000 Between: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 7th Floor, No.60 Skylark Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110 019 2 M/s. Sukhjit Startch Mills, Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad - 3 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction especially in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dt. 25.4.2000 in Appeal No.ATA- 66(1)2000 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and unjust in so far as in reducing the damages from 25% to 15% and in consequence direct the 2nd respondent herein to pay the damages as per the order dt. 21.12.1999 passed by the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.N.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18058 of 2000 ORDER: Heard both sides. Petitioner-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nizamabad, questions the order of the 1st respondent, dated 25- 04-2000, in modifying the order of the petitioner, dated 19-01- 2000, by reducing the damages from 25% to 15% for the delayed payment of contribution amount payable under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner through order, dated 19-01-2000, imposed damages at the rate of 25% under Section 14B of the Act, on the alleged delayed remittance of contribution amount pertaining to the period from December, 1985 to January, 1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent ﬁled an appeal before the 1st respondent stating that in fact the application ﬁled by the 2nd respondent for voluntary coverage of provident fund contribution was rejected by the 7A authority through letter, dated 21-09- 1988, and accordingly directed the 2nd respondent to comply with the provisions of the Act. Immediately, after compliance of the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent deposited entire arrears on 29-03-1989. Thus, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the delay of contribution from December, 1985 to January, 1999 is not attributable to the 2nd respondent, but attributable to the Department only. The 1st respondent, after hearing both sides, through order, dated 25-04-2000, allowed the appeal in part reducing the damages from 25% to 15%. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contentions, which were raised before the 1st respondent, were never raised before the original authority and, therefore, it may not be permissible for the 2nd respondent to advance the said contentions before the appellate authority. If that be so, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside both the orders of the petitioner, dated 19-01-2000, as we11 as the 1st respondent, dated 25-04-2000, and remit the matter to the petitioner, so as to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 14B of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the orders of the petitioner, dated 19-01-2000, as well as the 1st respondent, dated 25-04-2000, and remitted the matter to the petitioner, so as to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 14B of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27-08-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}