Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Calcutta High Court Affirms Employer Liability in Provident Fund Case: Amalgamated Banks Must Inherit BOT Liabilities

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court upholds penalties on Paschim Banga Gramin Bank for delayed Provident Fund contributions, dismissing claims against Section 14B of EPF Act.

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the imposition of penalties and interest on Paschim Banga Gramin Bank for delayed remittance of Provident Fund contributions. The Court affirmed that the liabilities of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of an amalgamated bank must be inherited by the new entity, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

The case stems from the amalgamation of Mayurakshi Gramin Bank with Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, effectuated by a notification from the Ministry of Finance on February 26, 2007. Following the merger, the Provident Fund exemption granted to Mayurakshi Gramin Bank was revoked, and the new entity was held responsible for remitting Provident Fund contributions. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposed damages and interest on Paschim Banga Gramin Bank for delayed remittance of contributions for the periods between 1998 and 2013. The petitioner contested the liability, arguing that the BOT was a separate entity and that Section 14B of the EPF Act was unconstitutional.

Liability of Amalgamated Entity:

The Court clarified that post-amalgamation, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank inherited all liabilities of Mayurakshi Gramin Bank, including those managed by the BOT. Justice Partha Sarathi Sen noted, “The undertakings of the transferor Regional Rural Banks shall be transferred to and shall vest in the transferee Regional Rural Bank.” This ruling included the responsibility for delayed Provident Fund contributions.

Credibility of Provident Fund Authority’s Action:

The Court upheld the Provident Fund Authority’s actions, emphasizing that due process was followed. “The summons issued on 31.12.2013 and 12.03.2014 and the subsequent order dated 25.06.2015 show that due opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend their case,” Justice Sen remarked.

Statutory and Constitutional Consistency:

Addressing the petitioner’s challenge to Section 14B of the EPF Act, Justice Sen emphasized that the provision aligns with Section 17(1-A) and Article 14 of the Constitution. “There is no inconsistency between Section 14B and Section 17(1-A) of the EPF Act, and the provision does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution,” the judgment stated.

Employer Responsibility:

The Court reaffirmed that the employer’s liability persists even after establishing the BOT. Justice Sen clarified that the BOT is not an independent entity absolving the employer of responsibilities. “The employer is equally duty-bound to perform his obligations as per the written undertaking given to the Provident Fund Authority,” he explained, referencing clauses 22 and 23 of Appendix A of Para 27AA of the EPF Scheme.

Validity of Section 14B:

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument for reading down Section 14B, Justice Sen cited precedents and legislative intent. He referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam, which emphasized that reading down a statutory provision is impermissible unless the constitutional validity is challenged and the Union of India is given an opportunity to defend it.

“The corroboration provided by the Provident Fund Authority’s thorough process is significant, and there is no arbitrariness in the order imposing damages and interest,” Justice Sen observed.

The Calcutta High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the judiciary’s stance on employer accountability in Provident Fund matters, particularly concerning amalgamated entities. By upholding the validity of Section 14B of the EPF Act, the judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory obligations and the consequences of non-compliance. This ruling is likely to impact future cases involving similar disputes, bolstering the legal framework for Provident Fund contributions.

 

Date of Decision: 21st June 2024

Paschim Banga Gramin Bank vs. Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News