Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta has issued a verdict affirming the legality of recovery proceedings initiated under the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petition challenging the orders of attachment against the company was dismissed, stating the employer’s liability for statutory payments and interest under the applicable provisions of law.

The dispute arose when the petitioner company, a formerly exempted establishment under the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, contested the cancellation of its exemption and the subsequent recovery proceedings initiated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Jute). The exemption granted to the company was withdrawn by an order dated April 24, 2002, with effect from March 31, 2002. The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the High Court, which dismissed the claim at the Single Bench level. The company then appealed to the Division Bench, which granted a stay on the operation of the cancellation order.

The company was declared a sick industrial unit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned on June 30, 2000. Despite its financial struggles, the company was required to meet its obligations under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Following the cancellation of its exemption, EPFO issued demands for contributions from June 2005 onwards, citing defaults in payments. The petitioner received a summons from the EPFO on August 16, 2005, requiring its appearance in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act.

The petitioner requested a deferment of the hearing due to a major surgery involving a company officer. However, on the same date, the authorities proceeded to pass an order under Section 7Q of the Act, directing payment of Rs. 8,66,967 as interest for delayed contributions. On September 22, 2005, the petitioner received another order dated September 12/16, 2005, demanding an additional Rs. 7,90,976 under Section 7Q. The order warned that failure to make payments would result in recovery proceedings under Sections 8B to 8G of the Act.

The petitioner challenged these orders, asserting that the assessment was arbitrary and that it was denied a proper hearing regarding the imposition of interest. The company argued that an independent hearing under Section 7A should have been conducted before determining liability under Section 7Q.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 7A and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 7A empowers designated authorities to determine outstanding employer contributions, while Section 7Q mandates interest payments on delayed remittances.

Citing Allied Electricals & Switch Fuses & Ors. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the court reiterated that "unless and until there is a default on the part of the petitioners, there cannot be any liability of payment of interest and/or damages." However, it stated that statutory deadlines for provident fund contributions are strictly enforced, and delays automatically trigger interest liability.

In Mangilal v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court stated that "even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected." The court noted that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to present its case but failed to appear, making the challenge against the hearing process unsustainable.

The judgement also referred to Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., which held that "an order under Section 7A is an order that determines the liability of the employer under the provisions of the Act, and while determining the liability, the competent authority offers an opportunity of hearing to the concerned establishment." The court observed that when a composite order under Sections 7A and 7Q is issued, it is subject to appeal. However, a standalone order under Section 7Q is not independently appealable.

The court determined that in this case, the orders under Section 7Q were integrated into the Section 7A proceedings and that the petitioner had ample notice and opportunity to respond. The claim that separate hearings were required for different provisions was rejected.

The court observed that the hearing in this case under Section 7A inherently included considerations under Section 7Q, stating: "the hearing in this case under Section 7A of the EPFA also includes a hearing under Section 7Q of the Act. This is a composite hearing which concludes in a composite order."

Since the orders were issued in accordance with statutory provisions and no procedural lapses were identified, the petition was dismissed. The court also vacated any interim orders that had previously stayed enforcement proceedings.

Case Title: M/s. Vijai Shree Ltd. & Anr. v. Regional P.F. Commissioner (Jute) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19799 of 2005
Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

[Read/Download order]