IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 862 of 2008(L)
1. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
... Petitioner
2. THE REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER,
Vs
1. K.RAVEENDRANATH, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
R.P.No. 862 of 2008
&
W. P (C) No. 2636 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 18th August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The Provident Fund Organisation has filed this review petition
for review of my judgment dated 24-6-2008 in the writ petition. The
contention is that the amount of Rs. 1,69,735.25 which was taken by
me as the defaulted amount on which damages were calculated was
not actually the principal amount. As per Ext. P1, it was the balance
amount due from the petitioner as contributions as on the date of
issuing Ext. P1. But, the amounts which the petitioner had already
paid were also paid belatedly in respect of which also damages are
payable and therefore my assumption that the amount of Rs.
1,69,735.25 is the principal amount on which damages were
calculated is not correct. The mistake occurred on account of the
failure on the part of the counsel to bring this fact to the attention of
this Court, which is an oversight, is the contention raised in the
review petition. Counsel would also submit that the question
regarding imposition of damages on the administrative charges is also
pending consideration by a Division Bench in W.A.No. 2182/2006
against the judgment based on which I had held that on
administrative charges no damages can be imposed
2. I have heard both sides.
3. It is true that in Ext. P1 order, the balance amount payable
by the petitioner as contributions is mentioned as Rs. 1,69,735.25
after deducting the amounts already paid. It may be true that the
amounts already paid were also belated payments. But the same is
not evident from the impugned order imposing damages, which is Ext.
P6. But all the same, I feel that the Provident Fund Organisation
should be given another opportunity to clarify the matter, after
R.P. No. 862/08 & W.P.C. 2636/04 -: 2 :-
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, I
am not inclined to review my decision regarding the liability for
damages in respect of administrative charges in so far as in the said
writ appeal, admittedly, no stay order has been passed. Accordingly,
my judgment dated 24-6-2008 is reviewed and the writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
The finding that no damages are imposable on administrative
charges would remain as such. However, the Provident Fund
Organisation shall re-assess the damages payable by the petitioner,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner afresh.
For this purpose, Ext. P6 is quashed. The assessment of damages
shall be strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by me in
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. Asst. P.F. Commnr. & Others,
[2006 (3) KLJ 698]. The review petition and writ petition are disposed
of as above. This is subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge
the fresh orders in accordance with law, if the petitioner is aggrieved
by the same.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/