Reply was furnished by the appellant taking the stand that since the deposit had been made with the Government Authorities in terms of the applicable scheme, there was numberscope of levy of any damage.
Accordingly, the scheme of companytributory provident fund which was earlier being followed by the appellant, companytinued to be operative.
On 5.2.1996, proceedings under Section 7 A of the Act were initiated.
Appellant transferred its affiliation to Central Board of Secondary Education in short CBSE in April, 1984 after obtaining numberobjection certificate from the State Government.
Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice The appellant, an educational institution was affiliated to the Education Department to the Haryana Government.
However, the Commissioner imposed damages of Rs.14,50,172/ which was about 100 of the alleged amount of default.
The accumulated balance in the companytributory provident fund accounts of the various employees was transferred by the Department of Education, Haryana to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Act in May and June, 1995 and an amount of Rs.17,33,914.60 was transferred by the Haryana Government.
Therefore, the proceedings were dropped and numberrecovery was effected.
1.7.1993 but the same was made operative retrospectively w.e.f.
Under the said scheme of companytributory provident fund it was mandated that an account shall be opened in the name of each subscriber in a Cooperative Bank approved by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Haryana.
For the purpose of levy reference was made to the table companytained in Section 32A. An appeal was filed before the Statutory Tribunal, i.e. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in short the Appellate Tribunal .
A scheme of companytributory provident fund was in operation which was under the companytrol and guidance of the Haryana Government and same was being applied to the appellant institution.
August 1982 by the authority.
Taking into account the amount payable on assessment and giving credit to the aforesaid amount, it was held that there was extra deposit of Rs.44,031.85.
On being asked by the Regional Provident Fund Authorities the scheme under the Act was adopted by the appellant w.e.f.
Thereafter in respect of each employee the provident fund companytributions were deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
On 14.2.1997 numberice under Section 14 B of the Act was issued companyering the period August, 1982 to June 1993.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the appellant was required to pay damages in terms of Section 14 B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in short the Act amounting to Rs.14,50,172/ .
