Case: Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner

y filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order dated, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (the Commissioner) levying damages of Rs 1, 01, 089.50 under SectionB of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for delay in payment of the inspection charges payable under Section) of the Act2.The Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (the Scheme) framed under Sect ionC of the Act came into effect from. On, they made an application to the Central Government under Section 17 of the Act for exemption of their establishment from the said Scheme., theCentral Government granted the exemption by its notification dated. The notification stated that the exemption was granted for 3 years. The notification did not state as to from which date the exemption was granted and from which, theperiod of 3 years was to be calculated3.Pending the application before the Central, theappellant company had filed an application before the Commissioner under paragraph 28(7) of the Scheme. The Commissioner by his order dated4.It appears that during the period when the said applications before the Central Government and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were pending for exemption and for the interim exemption, theappellant companypaid all the inspection charges which were due up to February 1981 by. On, theCommissioner issued a showcase notice to they demanding from it the Employees Provident Fund Contributions/Family Pension Fund Contributions/ Administrative Charges/Inspection Charges/Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Contribution for the periods August 1976 to April 1979, June 1979 to September 1979 and September 1979 to February 1981. As per Annexure A to the said, thetotal amount so demanded was Rs 1, 50, 484. Subsequently, on, thefinal order was passed levying damages for the delay in payment of the inspection charges amounting to Rs 1, 01, 089.50. It is this order which was challenged by they by a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by the order impugned in the present appeal, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellantcompany was liable to pay both administrative charges as well as inspection charges for the period in question and since there was a delay in payment of the said, thedamages levied were valid. The High Court further held that since the damage s were levied under the discretionary powers of the, theCourt was not called upon to interfere with the same while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Reasoning:
The said charges were leviable under paragraph 8 of t he Scheme in connection with the administration of the fund only if the fund had been handed over by the appellantcompany to the Commissioner in case the exemption was not granted.Hence,theonly charges thatthey was liable to pay weretheinspection charges under Section) oftheActsince such charges become payable whentheexemption is granted., ontheadmitted facts thatthey had paid alltheinspection charges due up to February 1981, by, i.e., even beforetheorder dated1 was passed bytheCommissioner grantingthetemporary exemption as well as beforethefinal orderdated2 passed bytheCentral Government granting exemption under Sectione was no delay in payment oftheinspection charges. Infirst notice calling uponthey to show cause as to whyy should not be saddled withtheinspection charges among, was issued t om only on. Inthecircumstances,e was no delay inthepayment oftheinspection charges.Hence,no damages could be. Inthecircumstances,we are oftheview thattheHigh Court was in error in dismissingthe