1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2343 OF 1997 PETITION NO.2343 OF 1997 PETITION NO.2343 OF 1997 Eicher Limited, Thane ... Petitioner Vs. The Regional Provident Fund ... Respondents Commissioner, Mumbai - 51 Mr. P.K. Rele with Mr. Piyush Shah for Petitioner None for the Respondent though served. CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2008 : 24TH APRIL, 2008 : 24TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner dated 26th March, 1997 whereby 100% penalty has been levied upon the petitioner under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the relevant time the petitioner- Company was under B.I.F.R. and this fact was brought to the notice of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, however, the same has not been considered and 100% penalty has been imposed upon 2 the petitioner. 3. Mr. Rele, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Star of Gujarat Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another reported in 1993 - I L.L.N. 1993 - I L.L.N. 1993 - I L.L.N. 377 377 377, decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bakshi Steels Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1994-II 1994-II 1994-II L.L.N. L.L.N. L.L.N. 283 283 283 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Poysha Industrial Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1995 1995 1995 I CLR 472 CLR 472 CLR 472 and submitted that in the light of Second proviso to Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, it was obligatory on the part of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not considered the above aspect of the matter. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the case remanded back 3 for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. ( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)