Rastradoot Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cyan sudha misra, j.1. this petition was filed for a review of the order passed by this court on december 17, 1996, in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1053a/1994 rastradoot, jaipur v. union of india and anr. whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner rastradoot jaipur was dismissed holding therein that the employees' provident and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (the act of 1952 for short) was not (sic ?) applicable on the petitioner-organisation which is a newspaper establishment having a printing press. the petitioner had further challenged the levy of penalty on delayed payment of the provident tuna contribution by the employer with the r.p.f. commissioner.2. after considering several authorities mentioned in the impugned order, the objection of the petitioner that the aforesaid act is not applicable on the petitioner-newspaper, was rejected in view of the ratio of the apex court judgment delivered in the matter of organo chemical industry and anr. v. union of india and ors. reported in air 1979 sc 1803 : 1979 (4) scc 573 : 1979-ii-llj-416 wherein it has been held that the power conferred under section 14-b of the act of 1952 to levy damages on employers defaulting in payment of contribution towards the provident fund was not arbitrary or unguided and hence the provisions regarding levy of penalty was not held to be violative of article 14 of the constitution of india.3. hence, it was held that the employees' provident funds act of 1952 was applicable and the penalty also could be imposed on the employer in case the amount was not deposited within the time prescribed. the levy of penalty therefore to the extent of rs. 85,115 was treated as justified and hence the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire amount by way of penalty except 25 per cent of that amount which he had already deposited.4. the petitioner thereafter filed this review petition initially on the ground that the petitioner being a newspaper establishment with a printing press, it would be covered under the working journalists act, 1955, and it is not under any liability to deposit the contribution towards provident fund under the employees' provident funds act, 1952. however, it could not be disputed that this provision is applicable on the newspaper- establishments for the last 29 years including the petitioner- newspaper establishment and hence i do not deem it appropriate to review this position in this petition. now the only controversy is whether 100 per cent penalty could have been levied by the respondents on the petitioner establishment on account of late payment of the provident fund contribution.5. challenging the levy of penalty, learned counsel for the petitioner sri kala has relied upon a judgment of the supreme court delivered in the matter of k. streetlite electric corporation v. regional provident fund commissioner reported in 2001 scc (l&s;) 732 : 2001-i-llj-1703 wherein also the question cropped up as to whether 100 per cent penalty could be levied for late payment of provident fund contribution. the learned judges of the apex court were of the view that levy of 100 per cent penalty on account of default was not justified but instead of remanding the matter on account of pendency of the matter for a long time, thought it fit to confine the amount of damages to 25 per cent only. in the instant matter too, similar situation arises where the amount by way of penalty which was rs. 85,115 has been calculated at the rate of 100 per cent out of which 25 per cent of the amount has already been deposited by the petitioner as per direction of this court which was issued at the time of admission of the writ petition. it thus emerges that the petitioner has already deposited 25 per cent of the amount in question by way of penalty and that is purely m consonance with the view taken by the supreme court in its judgment referred to hereinbefore.6. the end result of the situation is that the earlier direction of this court to the petitioner in the impugned order to deposit 100 per cent penalty is fit to be recalled and modified to the extent that the petitioner who has deposited 25 per cent of the amount in question by way of penalty due to late payment of deposit of employees provident fund contribution should be treated as sufficient amount towards penalty and no amount beyond this is required to be deposited by the petitioner. this review petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and stands disposed of.