CIRCLE RESTAURANT Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the owner of Circle Restaurant, Channagiri Road, Bhadravathi directed against the order made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Karnataka under Sec. 7 A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The case for the department was that the Circle Restaurant, Bhadravathi, was brought under the provisions of the Act on the basis of the recommendations of the squad of Inspectors who had inspected the premises. The present petitioner furnished a declaration in the prescribed form. A psrusal of the report of the Inspectors as well as the declaration filed by the proprietor, it was clear that the restaurant was covered by the Act. Despite the advise given by the department, the employer ignored and the provident fund Inspector was compelled to file a criminal complaint for non-submission of statutory returns. The prosecution was launched in the Court of the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi. The petitioner, however came to be acquitted in those proceedings.

(3.) it was in that circumstance that the enquiry was commenced under Sec. 7A of tha Act. On 22-1-1985 the petitioner acknowledged the notice issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner but remained absent except for sending a telegram followed by a letter stating that the Act is not applicable to him or his establishment as the employment strength of the establishment was only 9 and not 20. The telegram and the letter was accompenied by a xerox copy of the registiation certificate issued by the Labour Inspector in support of that contention. Therefore, it was considered proper by the Provident Fund Commissioner that employer should be heard in psrson and also to examine the departmental witnesses. In that view of the matter, he adjourned the case to 20-2-1985 at Shimoga to facilitate the employer to attend the enquiry with all the documents in support of his contention. The employer chose to ignore the notice though the venue fixed for enquiry was only 11 miles away from Bhadravathi. The case was once again adjourned to 28 3-1985 and then to 3-7-1985 and finally to 21-7-1986. On none of those dates the petitioner chose to attend the enquiry. He kept on repeating his stand that his employment strength was only 9 and that the Act was therefore not applicable to his establishment. He refused to co-operate with the field officers when they visited his establishment. He refused production of records on tha plea that the same were with the auditors when the Inspectors visited his establishment. It was in that circumstance the enquiry was conducted exparte.