DECCAN EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Deccan Education Society, has challenged the legality of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Kalaburagi, whereby the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioner-Society is engaged in imparting education to students. The Society is managing various colleges where the education for degree of B.Ed., M.Ed., D.Ed., etc., is imparted and bestowed. The said Society was brought under the cover of the Act from 2009. However, it was discovered by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner that despite being brought under the cover of the Act, the petitioner-Society was not depositing its share of the provident fund for the welfare of its employees. Therefore, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner initiated enquiry under Section 7A of the Act, in order to determine the amount due from the society. In order to enquire, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued summons to the petitioner- Society on 09.07.2012 and directed the petitioner- Society to appear before him on 26.07.2012. However, as no one appeared on behalf of the Society, the case was posted to 16.08.2012. Despite giving a large number of dates, almost 29 dates, still no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Society before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Meanwhile, the Enforcement Officer submitted his inspection report, and gave his deposition. Having considered the inspection report and the deposition, by order dated 01.08.2014, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner directed the petitioner-Society to deposit an amount of Rs.20,33,803/- with the department.

(3.) Since the petitioner-Society was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a review petition under Section 7B of the Act, before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. However, by order dated 13.02.2015, the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dismissed the review petition, mainly on the ground that the review petition had to be filed within three months from the date of the communication of the order under Section 7A of the Act. Since the review petition was filed beyond the said period of limitation, the review petition was rejected. Hence, the present petition before this court.