411 0 1 1 t1 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No 14811 of2008 Date ofDecision Mayl7 2010 RegionalProvidentFund CommissionerSCO No 5e8 Sector12 Urban Estate Kamal Petitioner t Versus 0 Mls KayIron Works Pvt Ltd villageJorianRadaurRoad Yamuna Nagar 0 and another Co Respondents r CeWePeNo 20036of2008 4 Z RegionalProvidentFund CommissionerSCO No 58 Sector2 Urban EstateKamal a C2 Petitioner I Versus 08 CiO Mls KayIron WorksPvt Ltd villageJorianRadaurRoad YamunaNagar throughSh Pra8111Chandraslo Sh Late NareshChandra Director and eJ another Z 0m CeWeP No 21871of2008 RegionalProvident Fund CommissionerSCO No 58 Sector12 Urban Estate Kamal throughSh Darbara Singh Assistant Provident Fund CommissionerKamal Petitioner Versus Mls HaryanaSheet Glass Limited villageSevli PS Rai Sonipathrough its Direct RS Sekhawatandanother 7 Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 412 4 l 9 CaWPe No 14811of2008 and other cases e2e CORAM2 HONBLE MRe JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Presentl Mr Kamal SehgalAdvocate for thepetitioneroinall the Mr DC SingalAdvocate for respondent No 16inCWPs No 14811and 20036of20089 Mr PX MutnejaAdvocate for No 1 in CWP No 21871of 20081 AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Jee 1 Costsas orderedbythisCourt deposited By this Order I propose to decideCWP No 14811 of 2009 0 C Regional Provident Fund CommissionerVersusMls KayIron WorksPvt Ltd I C5 and another CWP No 20036 of 2008 RegionalProvident Fund CommissionerVersusMls KayIron WorksPvt Ltd and another and CWP C4 Z No 21871 of 2008 RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner Versus MIs HaryanaSheet Glass Limited as common questionof law is involved in all the writ petitionsCounselfor thepartieshavealsoaddressedarguments ln I 08 thesecases together oo These three writ petitionshavebeenprefenedby the Regional a2 Z Provident Fund CommissionerKamal challenging the Orderspassedby the 0 EmployeesProvident Fund AppellateTribunal New Delhi hereinaer refened to as the Tribunalovide which the damages imposedby the AssistantProvidentFund CommissionerKamal underSection14B of the EmployeesProvident Fund and MiscellaneousProvisions Act 1952 hereinafterreferredto as the EPF and MP ActOc 37Io of the amountof arrears stands reducedto 20Io in CWR No 14811of2008 and CWP No 20036of2008 and 17Io in CWllo 21871of2008 It is not in dispute that respondents in the writ petitionsdefated in rrg payments to the Fund as provided under Section 60f theEPF andMP Act The Orderspassedbythe Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Kamal imposing the damages under Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 413 Il 6C9 14 3 CeWePeNoe 14811of2008 and other casese 3 Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act c 370Ioof the amount of anears was challenged before the Tribunal by respondents primarilyon the groundthat the Authorityhad not held any inquiryor recorded Ondingof fact that had will61llyand withheldthe Provident Fund Contributior This was contendedbasicallyon the ground that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Kama4 had merelyreiying uponParaa32Aofthe Employees ProvidentFund Scheme1952 olereinaer m r referred to as the EFP Scheme9 imposedthe damages as 0 envisaged under thesaidPara ie 370Io The Appellate Tribunal conSidered C0 I the submissionsmade by the partiesand held that Para2A of the EPF C0 Scheme was onlya guidelineand the Assistant Provident Commissioner Ct Kamal while decidingthe quantumof damages under Section14B of the Z EPF Act should have taken into consideration the reasons for delayln M the contributionto le Fund and thenimposethe damagesbut e I r cannot be as per straight jacketformula Thedelayedpavmentof contribution 3 OO doesnot ipsofacto call for levyingthedamages as it was a quasijudicial Ct awAo function which was conferredon the thority as per the EPF Z and MP Act to consider the reasons for delay if any submitted by the Ll defaultersandthen come to a conclusionon the quantumof damages to be imposed under Section14B ofthe EPF and MP Act The Appellate Tribunal proceeded to hold that no inquiiyor Sndingof fact has been retumedthat the respondents hereinhad willfullyand withheld Provident Fund contributionand theEnquiryOftlcer hadnot exercisedhis discretionVlzmaVlZ delayfor remittanceof ProvidentFund dues Keing in view thesereasons and circumstancesthe damages were reducedat therates as detailedabove Counsel for thepetitioner contendsthata bare readingof Section 14B ofthe EPF and MP Act and secondprovisotheretoread with Para2A Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 CWP No 14811of2008 and other cases 4e of the EPF Schemecleariyenvisagethat in every case of default damage can be imposedand the discretionary power hasbeen taken away by amendment carried out in Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act by Act No 33 of 1988 with effect from 0091991 Para82A ofthe EPF Schemewas added to EPF and MP Act with effect from 0109991 The conjointamendmentsbrought out in the Act and the Scheme leaves no manner of doubt that the rate of damages ofarrearsper annumlas provided in Para2eA are the minimum rate of damages which cannot betampered with He contendsthat 0 Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act clearlyspellsOut that the damages 0 r would be recoveredas per rate specifled in theEPF Schemei Parae32 45 His furthercontention is that the secondprovisoto Section1443of theEPF I andMP Act detailsout the circumstancesunderwhichthe CentralBoard may 2 5t reduce or waive thedamages Ievied underthis Sectionand therefore to be a 0 eligible for suchreductionor waiver an establishmentis required to ful8l the conditionsas specitled in thesecond provisoHis funher contentionis that 08 CfO Para24 of the EPF Schemeis rigidand the rateof damages as prescribed m thereundercannot be reducedbelow the rates specified therein On the basis Z of theselegalsubmissions he contendsthatthe impugned Orderspassedby Cl theAppellate Tribunalcannot be sustained In supportof this contention counselfor the petitioner relies uponthe SingIeBench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Industries Hissar Versus RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner and another 1997I LLJ ppJ 216 a Div Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Avon ScaleCompany VersusRegionalProvidentFund Commissioner 1993eIILLl 226 SingleBench of Calcutta High Court in the ca of Andrew Yule and Co Ltd VersusRegionalProvident Fund Commissionerand others20010ILLJ 1385 andAtal Tea Company Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 1 5z l CWP Noe 14811of2008 and other casesa 5e Ltdnd another Versus RegionalProvident Fund Conzmissioner 1998e 9 LLJ upp 370 Judgments of Honble the SupremeCoun in the case of Halwasia VidyaVihaSr Sec SchoooHaryanaVersusRegionalProvident Fund Commissioner 2006 SCC 46 and OrganoChemical Industries cind another Versus Union ofIndia and others 1979LLJ 416 His funher submission is that in the given facts and circumstances of the cases of no reductionin damages was calledfor and thus the m C2 impugned ordersdeserveto be set aside 0 On the other hand counsel for respondentCompassubmit CO that Section 14B ofthe EPF andMP Act and Parae32Aofthe EPF Scheme c CA0 use the word may which showsthat the discretionis with theAuthority to I c levythedamagesWhen thereis a discretion providedin the statute as well as Z e in thescheme it cannot be said thatin all cases of defaultin paymentof any 2 contributionto Fund bythe establishmentsdamages hasto be imposedand 4 Z the same would be true with regard to rate of damages as well Theyfurther Oll rn submit thatthe powers of the AppeliateTribunalhave been provided under 7 Section74 ofthe EPF and MP Act which empowerstheAppellate Tribunal Z to pass such orderson an Appealpreferred bytheaggrieved partyas it thinks ll flt confirmingmodifying or annullingthe order appealed againstor may refer the case back to the Authoritywhich may pass such order as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit for afresh or order as thecase maybe aftertakingadditionalevidenceifnecessaryThe Appellate Tribunal hasvast powers and thereforeexerciseofpowerbytheAppellate Tribunal while reducingthe damages imposed under Section140B of the EPF Act is fullyjustifiedand does not call for any interferenceby this Court They submit that the AppellateAuthorityhas in the givenfactsand Clrcumstances ofthe cases come to theconclusion thatthe interestofjusticewould beduly Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 11 4 l CWP No 14811of2008 and other casese 6e servedby reducingthe damagesfrom 370Ioto 17Io and 20Io as statedabove Their submissionis that subordinate legislationcannot oveuide theprinciplelegislativeprovisionsThe penalprovisionshould be consUued strictlyandwhen a jurisdiction has beenconfenedon a Statutory Authority to levypenaldamages byreason of an enablingprovisionthe same cannotbe construedas imperativeThe provisions which are discretiona unlessthe statute holds it to be in charactercannot be by way of 1 11 subordinatelegislation made in character Counsel relies upon the 0 HighCoun in the case of CableCorporation ofIndia Ltd C and anotherVersus Union of India and an 2006 III CLR 349 Division mbe C5 Bench Judgment of this Court in the caseof Mls Elsons CottonMills Ltd I Gr VersusRegionalProvident Fund Commissioner Haolana 2001 SCT Z 1101 Theyhirtherrelyupon ofHonble theSupreme Coun in 2 the case of StateInsuranceCorporation VersusHMT Ltd and I another 2008O1SCC35 C6 I haveheard counselfor the partiesand have gone throughthe rlo recordsofthe case with theirableassistance 7 Z The EmployeesProvidentFund and MiscellaneousProvisions CL Act 1952 was enactedas a beneficiallegislation with an intention to secure theflltureof theindustrial worker afterhe retires or for his in the event of his earlydeath The Fund was primarily in the form of contribution whichshall bepaidbytheemployer towardshis shareas alsodeductionfrom the wages Section 6 of the EPF and MP Act details the contributionsand matters which may be providedfor in the Schemes The employer is mandatedto depositthe Provident Fund dues of its employee afterdeducting the same fromthe wagesofthe employee and his sharethereunderas provided underthisSectionwithin 15daysfromtheclose Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 c1f 7 CWP Noe 14811of2008 and other casese 7e of every month with the concemed Provident Fund Commissioner Parae29 of the EPF Scheme provides that the contribution payableby the employee shall be equalto the contribution payableby the employerin respect of such employeeParav38 of the EPF Scheme providesthe mode of payment According to this para the employer shall before payingthe employee his wagesin respectof any periodor part of periodfor which conuibutions are payabledeductthe employees contributionfrom his wages which together 1 t withhis own contributionas well as an administrativechargeshall pay within 0 flfteendaysof close of every monthsto the Fund byseparate bank draRs or C cheques on account of contributionand administrativecharge ln casethe 0 j4l employer fails to depositthe contributionswithin the prescribed periodthe Z e CentralProvidentFund Commissioneror Officer Authorised is competentto Z 4 recoverthedamages byway ofpenaltyunderSection14B ofthe EPF andMP m r Act after issuingshow cause notice to the concemedemployerand I considering thereplyif any submittedbyit In thecase in hand a5 Companiesadmittedly failed to depositthe provident81nd dues of its 00 e n employees withinthe time stipulated and accordity noticeswere issuedto Z them Thereafter the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Kamal 0 to imposedamages on delayed payments under Section 14B ofthe EPF and MP Act by relyingupon Para2A of the EPF Scheme which according to the petitionerprescribes the rate of damageswhich is to be imposed under Section 14B ofthe EPF andMP Act As thedefaultwas for more than six months damages imposedupon was 37Ioofthe amount ofarrears 1 For answering the questions as has been raised bycounsel for the 75 8 e 8 5 the relevantprovisions of the EPF andMP Act and relevant paras 71 174 97 k r oftheEPF Schemeneedto be referredhere which read as follow l Yr Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 fl 44 CeWePaNoe14811of2008 and other casese e8 14Be Power to recover damage Where an employermakes e defaultln the paymentof any contribution to the Fund the Pension Fund or the Insurance Fund or in the transferof accumulations requiredto be transferredby him under sube section ofsection15 or subsection 89 ofsection17 or in the payment ofanycharges payableunder any otherprovisionofthis Act or ofany Schemeor InsuranceSchemeor under any of the conditions specifiedunder section 17 the Central Provident Fund Commissioneror such other oicer as may be authorised by the Central Governmentby notifIcation tn the OBlcial r Gazettein thisbehalfmay recoveom theemployer byway of 0 penaltysuch damages not exceeding the amount of arrearS as 0 maybespecified in theScheme I Provided that beforelevyingand recovering such C damages the employer shall be givena reasonable I 1 ofbeingheard l Z Providedfurther thattheCentralBoard may reduce m or walve thedamages leviedunderthissection in relationto an C establishmentwhich is a sick industrialcompanyand in respect I ofwhicha schemefor rehabilitationhasbeensanctioned by the Boardfor Industrialand Financial Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick Industrial CompaniesSpecial 7 ProvisionslAct 198I of 19869subjectto such termsand Z conditions as may be speculed in theScheme Ll Para2mA Recoveryofdamagesfordltinpayment ofany contributione0 Where an employermakesdefaultin the paymentof any contributionto thefund OY ln thetransferof occumulationsrequiredto be transrred by him under sube sectlon 21 ofsection15 or sulsectior51ofsection 17 of the Act or in thepaymentof any chargespayableunder any other provisionsof theAct or Scheme or under any of the conditions specifiedundersection 17 oftheAct the Central Provident Fund Commissioneror such ofcer as may be authorisedby the CentralGovernmentbynotiflcation in the 087cialGazettein Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 419 0 J CaWePeNoe 14811of2008 and other casese 9e this behalf may recover fromthe employerby way of penalty damages at the rates gNenbelow Period oflDetlzult Rate ofiamaes eloofanlearsper annuml a Lessthantwo months 17 lbl Twomonthsandabove but lessthanfourmonths 22 cI Fourmonthsandabovebut 27 lessthansix months d1 Six monthsandabove 37 Thedamages shall be calculatedto thenearest rupees50 paiseor more to be countedas the nearest higherrupeeand 1 Q fraction ofa rupeelessthan50paiseto be ignored P3 0 A of the aboveprovisions wouldshow that for the main 0 section Parae32A of the EPF Schemewould be relevant and for second C5 proviso to the Section1iB Parae32Bwouldbe relevant Z First dealingwith thecontentionof counselfor the petitioner that Z there is no powerwiththe officerauthorisedto imposedamages C andthe rate thereofin thelightofParae32A ofthe EPF Schemehe word whichwoulddeterminethe nature ofmandatewhile the damages 05 oo tobe under Section 14B ofthe EPF Act wouldbe may usedin the saidsection as alsoin Parae324LThe use of thisword showsthe discretion 2 Z which hasbeenvestedwiththe Commissioneror of8cerauthorisedto impose ln andrecover from theemployer byway of penaltydamagesSection14B of the EPF andMP Act when readbringsout thatin defaultof paymentby the of any contribution to the Fund he becomesamenable to the ofpenaltyandrecoveryofthe same byway ofdamages as maybe in theEPF Scheme which however shallnot exceed the amount of anears Para32A ofthe EPF Schemealso uses theword may recover from theemployerbyway ofpenalty as damages at the rates mentionedabove This also showsthe discretionvestedwith the Commissioneror theofflcerauthorisetlThisparamerelyactsas a guidinglightanddoesnot Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 420 Ol S ID CeWePeNoe 14811of2008 and other casese 0 mandatethe rate of damages as provided therein Honble the Supreme Coun 111the case of Hindustan TimesLimited Versus Union ofIndia1998 9 SCC 242 has held as follows The authority under Section 14eBhas to applyhis mind to the factsofthe case and thereplyto theshowcause notice and pass a reasoned order 08erfollowingprinciplesof natural justice 1 and givinga reasonable of beingheard the RegionalProvident Fund Commissionerusuallytake lnto Pm considerationthe number of d4aultstheperiodof delaythe tr 1 3 frequencyof defaultand the amounts involved def2zult on the 0 part of the employerbased on plea of powercut 8nancial C3 problemsrelating to other indebtedness or the delay l77 11 IC5 realisationof amounts paidbythecheques or draftscannot be I justijlablegrounds for theemployer to escapeliabilitytherelS noperiodoflimitationprescribed bythelegislature for initiating Z actionforrecovely ofdamages under S 14B 33 2 Cl Honble the Supreme Court in the case of EmployeesState I InsuranceColporationVersusHMT Ltd and another 2008 I SCC 35 08 while dealingwith pari materiaprovisionsunder the EmployeesState CO ll le 4 Insurance Ac 1948 and EmployeesStateInswance GeneraoRegulation 47 Z 1950 whereinSection 85eBand Regulation 31eC were underconsideration Om Inparasel415161718212425and26heldasfollow l 14 Section 85B of the Act empowersthe Corporation to recover the damages in theevent an employer fails to make the paymentof the amount due in respectof contributior subject however to the conditionthat the amount thereofwould not exceed the amount of arrears as may be specifiedin the RegulationsThe provisoappended thereto the principlesof naturaljustice 15 Obligationon the part of the employer to depositthe contributionsof both the employerand the employeelSnot in disputeNhatis in dispute is as to whethertheamount of Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 421 a4 CeWePNoe 14811of2008 and other casese 11 damagesspecifiedln Regulation31C of the RegulationslS imperative in character or not 16 It is a wellaknown principleof law that a subordinate legislation must conform to theprovisionsof the legislative Act Section85B of theAct providesfor an enablingprovision lt doesnot envisagemandatory levyofdamagesIt doe not also ofquantumofdalnages in the mcmner prescribed under theRegulations 17 Thestatutoryliabilityoftheemployer is not in disputeAn m beingrequiredto be insured the is bound to makehis part of the contribution An 0 is alsobound to makehis part of thecontribution An C employee is also bound to make his contribution under theAct Butthe same doesnot mean thatlevyofdamages in all situations C5 wouldbeimperave I 18 Section85B of the Act Uses the words nay recover Z Levyof damages thereunder is by way of penaltye not the amount of arrear 31C of the lr Regulationstherefore in our opinion must be construed I keeping in view the language usedin thelegislative Act and not 08 de horsthesame 00 21 A penalprovisionshould be construed strictly Only 3 becauseaprovisionhas beenmadeforlevyofpenaltythe same Z byitselfwould not lead to the conclusionthatpenaltymust be CL leviedin all situations Suchan intentionon thepartof the legislative is not from Section 8SB of the Act When a jurisdictionhas been conferred on a statutoolauthorityto levypenaldamagesby reason of an enablingprovisionthe same cannot be construedas imperative Even otherwise an endeavourshouldbe madeto construe such penalprovisionsas unlessthe statute is held to be in character 24 We agreewith the said view as alsofor the additional reason that the subordinatelegislationcannot ovenide the principallegislative provisions Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 422 V 2 CWePe Noe 14811of2008 and other casese 12e 25 The statute itself does not say that a penaltyhas to be levied onlyin the manner prescribedIt is also not a case where the authorityis leftwith no discretion The legislatiori does not providethat adjudicationfor the purpose of levy of penalty proceedings would be a mere formalityor impositionofpenalty as also of the quantumthereofbecame a foregone conclusion Ordinarilyeven such a provisionwould not be held to providingfor mandatoryimpositionof penalty if the proceeding lS an one or compliance with the principles is necessarythereunder m r 26 Existenceof mens rea or actus reus to contravene a 0 statutoryprovisionmust also be held to be a Hecessary 0 ingredientfor levyofdamages andlorthequantumzhereof 1 IC5 In view of the above lt can safelybe said that the power to imposedamages under Section 14B ofthe EPF and MP Act is a quasijudicial Z power Section 1B of the EPF Act does not mandatethat m order of 4t m damages maynot follow in theevent of everydefaultmeaning thereby thatit C e I confersdiscretionupon the Commissioneror theofflcer authorisedto impose 08 damages not exceeding the amountof anears The exerciseof discretion n r mandatesproper appreciation and consideration for comingto a decision 3 P Parae32eAof the EPF Schemebeingin the form of subordinate legislation 1 cannotoverridetheprinciple and thereforeit can only be termedto be of guidingnature with no mandateauachedtheretoespecially when it itself uses the expression may while invoking thepowersof the Commissioneror ofScer authorisedto recover from theemployer byway of penaltysuch damageslccordinglythe first contentionof counselfor the petitioner that Para24 of the EPF Schemeleavesno discretionwith the Commissioner or officer authorised to reduce or waive the imposition of damagescannot be sustained ee Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 44 9 CeWsPNo 14811of2008 and other casese e13m As regardsthe contentionof counsel for the petitioner that power of reduction and waiver can only be exercised where speciOcconditions provided under the second provisoto Section 148 are specifiedsuffice it to sav that it deals with establishmentswhich are industrialcompaniesand it and givesdue weightage to the schemefor rehabilitationwhich hasbeen sanctionedby theBoard for lndusuial and Financial Reconstruction establishmentunder Section40f the Sick IndustrialCompanies ecial m Provisionso Act 1985 subjectto such terms and conditions as may be 0 specifiedin the Scheme It cannot be invoked or pressed lnto servlce to 0 contend that it is theonlyexception underwhich waiver andreduction in the 1r C rateofdamages can be exercised Accordinglythis contention ofthe counsel 1 for thepetitioner also cannot be accepted Z 1 5r A perusal of the impugned Orderspassedby the n2 0 ProvidentFund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi ie Order dated29012008 I AnnexureeP49 111CWP No 14811 of 2008 Order dated 30042 008 r4 in CWP No 20036of 2008and Order dated04092008 C10 AnnexureeP49 in CW3 No 21871of 2008 would showthat the Appellate 2 Z Tribunal came to a conclusion that no inquiryor findingof fact that 1n had willfulIyand withheld the Provident Fund contributionand also that the EnquiryOfflcer hadnot exercisedits discretion vizviz delayin remittanceofthe ProvidentFund dues Orderspassed under Section14B of theEPF and MP Act which were impugned in the Appeal sufferedfrom legaIinfInnitiesbut still theAppellate Tribunalinterferedwith regardto therates at which recovery from byway of penalty as damages was to be effected Once the AppellateTribunal had come to a conclusionthatno inquirywas heldbythe EnquiryOfficer the matter should havebeenremandedto the Ahority for freshdecisionin Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 1 Cl CeWeP Noe 14811of2008 and other casese e14e accordance with law The impugnedOrders passedby the Appellate 1 Tribunal quathis aspect cannot be sustainedand deserveto beset aside In view ofthe above theabovementionedwrit petitions are partly allowed The impugned Order dated 29Ol2008 6AnnexureP4in CWP No 14811 of 2008 Order dated30042008 CAmexureeP8in WR No 20036 of 2008 and Order dated 04092008 exureP49in CWR No 21871 of2008 are hereby set aside to thelimited extent as mentionedabove 1 0 The matter is remandedto the Assistant Provident Fund 0 CommissionerKamal for freshdecisionby giving reasonable O of beingheard are directedto appearbeforethe I C9 AssistantProvidentFundCommissionerKamal on 12072010 OAAa A photocopy ofthis Orderbe placedin the connectedSles Z 1 C 4AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH JUDGE I O sjks CQ Y 1 7 Whetherred to the Reporter Z Om A 18111017283 4J 11 Anita 2014.02.28 11: 40 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document