The delay was immaterial.
The appellant sent a letter dated 19.12.1872 giving only the dates on which the cheques were signed by the appellant.
The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 28.8.80 by a number speaking order merely saying dismissed.
It is against the said judgment that this appeal has been preferred.
It was stated there that the employers were using these monies in their business.
As a duty was judicially imposed on the authority, principles of natural justice were implied.
It does number appear that the appellant sent any further reply to the Department.
44,220.00 as damages and Rs.
1035.50 as administrative charges as companypared to Rs.
The facts of the case are as follows The appellant is the employer.
It was however stated that numberformal orders were passed by his predecessor deciding number to raise any demand, as companytended by the appellant in the appellants reply dated 5.2.80.
After referring to various companytentions and rejecting some of them, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stated that the payments for September 1966 and September 1972 were as stipulated in para, 38 of the scheme, and going by the dates of the challans and treating those dates as the dates of presentation of cheques in the Bank, the deposits for December 66, January 67, February 67, January 68, April 68 and June 68 were treated to have been deposited within the time stipulated in para 38 of the Scheme whereas the rest of the payments were treated as belated and amenable to damages.
843 of 1980 dismissing the Writ Petition of the Petitioner.
The appellants representative attended the hearing of the case on 1.5.79 and 3.7.79 and finally filed a reply on 5.2.80 raising various companytentions.
However, there was also numberfurther companyrespondence from the side of the department.
A companyy of the letter dated 23.10.1979 from the Bank giving details was also enclosed.
There was also numberproof of strikes by the workers for the period 23rd July to 16th September 1968.
The Statement of objects and Reasons of the Bill which became Act 40/73 stated that the arrears in 1959 60 were Rs.
1952 for the period July 65, October 65 December, 65 January 66 to March 66, August 66, July 67, August 67, May 68, July 68 to November 68.
Therefore, the department sent a further letter dated 10.1.1973 asking the appellant to furnish proof of the dates of presentation of cheques.
51,990.10 and Rs.
JAGANNADHA RAO.
1215.10 should number be recovered for the period from July 1965 to September, 1972.
3.65 crores in March 1970, they rose to 14.6 crores and by March 1971 to Rs.20.65 crores.
In the result the impugned order dated 7.5.80 was passed for recovery of Rs.
On account of delay in payment of provident fund companytributions, a numberice was issued on 23.3.71 by the Department companyplaining of delays in remitting the provident fund amounts for the period July 65, October 65, December 65 to March 1966, August 1966, September 1966, December 1966 to February 67, July 67 to August 67, January 68, April 68 to November 68 and September 1972 and stating that the amounts were credited in the accounts of the department only after 20th of the following months.
The appellant was requested to inform whether the cheques for these months were tendered on or before 20th of the following month to which the payment relates.
51,970,10 and administrative charges in a sum of Rs.
J. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 28.8.1080 in C.W.P. No.
The writ petition was filed questioning the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 7.5.1980 passed under section 14 B of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter called the Act levying damages in a sum of Rs 44,220.00 and Rs.
