IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16678 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. VARUN IMPEX LTD., VI/1036 A, SHAAN COMPLEX, BAZAR ROAD, KOCHI-682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 16678/2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 5-10-1998. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 12-10-1998. EXT.P3 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 15-9-2003. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 20-9-2003. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 20-10-2003. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 29-10-2003. EXT.P7 REVIEW PETITION DT. 4-12-2003. EXT.P8 NOTICE DT. 6-5-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 16678 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P 5 and P6 orders passed by the 2nd respondent, by which the petitioner was assessed to interest under Section 7Q and damages 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for delay in payment of contributions for the period from 10/1997 to 9/1998. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7B of the Act, which was rejected by Annexure I order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26-5-2004. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 3-6-2004 challenging Exts.P. 5 and P6 orders. 2. Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest and damages because the petitioner became liable to pay contributions because of retrospective amendment of the Act, whereby a provision relating to infancy protection for new establishments was deleted from the Act with retrospective effect. Counsel for the respondents could not dispute before me that the petitioner became liable to pay contributions only because of the retrospective amendment. In such circumstances, there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner in the matter of payment of contributions under the Act. That being so, I am satisfied that the demand for damages under Section 14B is arbitrary or unreasonable. However, in so far as the petitioner has not challenged the demand for contributions, since interest under Section 7Q is statutory, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P5. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is quashed and I declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay W.P.C. No. 16678/2004 -: 2 :- any damages in respect of the delay in payment of the contributions in question. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/