HOTEL ROOPA Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the validity and correctness of order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4898/2007.

(2.) The appellant-M/s Hotel Roopa is the Registered Partnership Firm represented by its Managing Partner, running a hotel in Mangalore. The squad led by respondent No.2-the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner inspected the establishment on 06.09.2000 and found that in all more than 20 persons were working in the hotel from September 1998 onwards. So, a Coverage Memo was issued to the Managing Partner of the appellant-M/s Hotel Roopa on 15.09.2000 under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). A reply was given to Coverage Memo denying that more than 20 persons were working which led to initiation of proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act by the respondent No.2-the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who inturn conducted an enquiry and held that in all 21 persons have been working in the hotel. The appellant was called upon to pay the PF contributions in respect of 21 employees for the period September 1998 April 2001 amounting to Rs.1,91,771.20/- by an order passed by respondent No.2.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2, the appellant preferred an appeal in ATA No.709(6)/2001 before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. On merits, the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 25.01.2007. Against the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.4898/2007, which came to be dismissed by order 03.07.2012 by the learned Single Judge. Challenging the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed on the ground that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner-respondent No.2 and the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal-respondent No.1 have wrongly come to the conclusion that in all more than 20 employees were working in the hotel which is without any basis. It is also contended that the respondent No.2-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority have not given proper opportunity to the appellant to putforth their case and the learned Single Judge without assigning proper reasons dismissed the Writ Petition while ratifying the order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.