IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5482 of 1986 Date of decision:06.07.2009 S.M. Wood Compressing Shuttle Company ...Petitioner Private Limited, Bombay. versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...Respondent Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision petition challenges the reasoned order of the Commission directing damages to be calculated under Section 14-B of the Employees State Provident Fund Act for delayed remittance of PF, EPF, Administration Charges and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance amounts. The damages which were assessed for various periods over delayed payments totalled to Rs.25,904/-. The order had been passed on 03.01.1984 directing the entire amount to be paid within 15 days. 2. The fact of the delayed remittance itself was not in dispute but it was sought to be contended that the industry was passing Civil Writ Petition No.5482 of 1986 - 2 - through a phase of recession and damages to the extent of 100% should not have been imposed. Even at the stage of filing of the writ petition, the admission was sought on the ground that similar writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.5198 and 3331 of 1985 had been admitted which addressed similar points as were raised in the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the writ petitions to which the present writ petition makes allusion to, have also been disposed of, upholding the power of the Provident Fund Commissioner to impose damages under Section 14-B of the Act. I have gone through the copy of the judgment which sets out the law on the subject, considering several decisions of this Court and other Courts and upholding the power of the Commission to impose damages. Neither the fact of recession of the industry nor the power to levy damages at 100% could be challenged in any way, for they do not provide the grounds which are relevant under Section 14-B of the Act. The impugned order suffers from no legal vice that could make it susceptible for intervention of this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.07.2009 sanjeev