Civil Writ Petition No.15674 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15674 of 2010 Date of Order: 20.07.2011 M/s Inertia Industries Limited ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent no.2 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.05.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had already deposited damages and interest from August, 1998 to June, 1999, vide challan Annexure P-10 to Annexure P-13, the appellate authority has failed to consider this fact. It is further argued that as the production of liquor was stopped on account of prohibition in the State of Haryana, the company approached the BIFR for sanction of a scheme of revival. The BIFR while making its recommendation directed Civil Writ Petition No.15674 of 2010 -2- authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to waive damages and penalties for delayed payments of provident fund. The recommendation has not been considered by the respondents-authority while imposing damages and penalty upon the petitioner-company. Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition should be dismissed as arguments addressed were duly considered and decided. As admittedly the petitioner has not deposited provident fund, it is liable to pay penalty and damages as prescribed by statute. It is further submitted that the petitioner's contention with respect to the recommendation made by the BIFR has been duly considered by the appellate authority and rejected. It is further pointed out that in case the petitioner seeks to implement the recommendations made by the BIFR, the petitioner may approach Central Board of Trustees under Section 14(B) of the Act. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order clearly establishes that penalty and damages deposited by the petitioner pursuant to challan Annexure P-10 to Annexure P-13 have neither been considered nor adverted to by the appellate authority. In addition, while rejecting the petitioner's claim for waiver of penalty and damages, in accordance with the recommendation Civil Writ Petition No.15674 of 2010 -3- made by the BIFR, the appellate authority has not referred to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "SICA Act") in its entirety. The appellate authority has merely held that the recommendation is not applicable to the present case. The consequences of the recommendation made by BIFR, has not been considered, in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act. In view of the infirmities referred to above, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 28.05.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal afresh, in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on 12.09.2011, for further proceedings. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to approach the authorities under Section 14(B) of the Act for considering the recommendation made by BIFR. No order as to costs. July 20, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE