PROMOD NATH Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 6th November, 1998 of the respondent/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) dismissing the application dated 22nd August, 1998 of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 20th February, 1998 under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner further seeks the relief of allowing the application of the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 20th February, 1998 and direction to the respondent to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order under Section 7A of the Act. This Court vide ex parte order dated 4th June, 1999 while issuing notice of the petition to the respondent stayed the operation of the recovery certificates issued by the respondent pursuant to the ex parte order under Section 7A of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21st January, 2000 on the premise that the order under Section 7A of the Act is appealable under Section 7 -I of the Act and giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. However, the said order so disposing of the writ petition was recalled on 26th May, 2000 finding that the order impugned in this petition i.e. of dismissal of the application for setting aside of the ex parte is not appealable. Subsequently on 6th September, 2000, the ex parte order dated 4th June, 1999 was made absolute during the pendency of the petition.

(2.) THIS Court is therefore in this petition only concerned with the validity of the order dated 6th November, 1998 of the respondent dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 7A(4) of the Act for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 20th February, 1998 under Section 7A of the Act and not with the merits of the order dated 20th February, 1998 where against appeal lies before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) IT is further the case of the petitioner that he w.e.f. 10th September, 1986 voluntarily informed the respondent that number of his employees had increased to more than 19 and the petitioner voluntarily started deducting the PF from that date.