G . MASTANAIAH , CONTRACTOR Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that, he is a Class-I contractor covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Act. Summons was issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry since he had failed to pay the arrears. By the order dated 7.6.2011, it was noted that on the failure to pay amount, he be directed to appear before the authority and show cause as to why he should not be committed to the civil prison for execution of the said certificate. Thereafter, by the impugned order vide Annexure-H he was directed to remit an amount of Rs. 9,23,914 towards provident fund dues etc. The same is sought to be challenge here.

(2.) The material on record would indicate that the petitioner did not appear before the Assessing Authority. When the order was passed, he preferred an appeal. In terms of Annexure-D, the order was passed on 24.1.2011. It is his case that sufficient opportunity should have been granted.

(3.) However, I am unable to accept the said contention. The appeal was filed in the year 2005. It was disposed off in the year 2011. The order of the appellate authority would indicate that no arguments were advanced by the appellant. Under the circumstances, based on the available material on record, the order was passed. I do not find any good ground to interfare with the order passed by the authority only on the ground that it was passed in a hurried manner.