Section 14-B damages orders are invalid when notices go to a known obsolete address.

The petitioner school challenged an order dated 13 December 2017 imposing damages and interest for delayed provident-fund remittances for March 2005 to August 2011, a consequential recovery demand dated 13 July 2018, and a subsequent order dated 13 August 2018

The EPFO had been informed of the school’s change of address, and its records noted the transfer of the proceeding following that change; nevertheless, notices and the impugned orders were issued to the school’s former address at Rajendra Nagar, Patna

The petitioner alleged that it had not received an effective opportunity to be heard before the ex parte order was made

The EPFO objected that the writ petition was not maintainable because an appellate remedy was available, and maintained that the petitioner had received adequate notice

1. Whether the EPFO’s proceedings and order imposing damages under Section 14-B were valid when notices were sent to the petitioner’s former address despite the EPFO’s knowledge of its changed address

2. Whether the consequential recovery demand and related order could stand if the underlying Section 14-B order had been made without the required opportunity to be heard

Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 requires that an employer be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before damages are levied

Section 7-A(3) similarly requires a reasonable opportunity for the employer to represent its case in an inquiry to determine amounts due

The Court applied the principle that when a statute prescribes a manner for exercising a power, the power must be exercised in that manner and not otherwise, relying on Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and the authorities cited there

It also referred to Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar on the insufficiency of a single unsuccessful attempt at service in the circumstances discussed in that case

The Court found that the EPFO knew the school had moved and that its new address was available in the record, but nevertheless conducted the proceedings and issued the relevant communications to the old address

On that basis, it concluded that the petitioner had not received the reasonable opportunity required by Sections 7-A(3) and 14-B.

The defective proceedings therefore could not support the damages order; because the recovery demand was consequential to that order, it too was unsustainable

It set aside the order dated 13 December 2017, the recovery demand dated 13 July 2018, and the related order dated 13 August 2018, and allowed the writ petition