PEE AAR ELECTRODES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred for quashing of the order dated 1st February, 1995 of the respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) of determination under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 holding the provisions of the Act applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. Though under Section 7D as inserted in the Act w.e.f. 1st July, 1997, the order as impugned in this petition is appealable before the Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal but this petition having been preferred prior to the incorporation of the said Section 7D is maintainable. This Court vide ex parte order dated 9th March, 1995 while issuing notice of the petition stayed the operation of the order dated 1st February, 1995 and the said order was made absolute on 22nd February, 1996 till the decision of the writ petition.

(2.) The Act, as per Section 1(3)(a) is applicable to an establishment in which 20 or more persons are employed. The only controversy raised in the present petition is as to whether the establishment of the petitioner can be said to be employing 20 persons.

(3.) On the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the enforcement squad of the respondents, coverage notice was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the applicability of the Act on the ground of not employing 20 employees and also on the ground of being not an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act. The RPFC vide order impugned in this petition held against the petitioner on both counts. The petitioner has in the writ petition not challenged the finding of its factory being specified in Schedule I of the Act and has confined the challenge only to the number of employees employed by it. While according to the petitioner, it employs 19 persons, according to the RPFC, at the time of visit by the enforcement squad of the respondents, besides the 19 employees, an accountant of M/s Jindal Singla & Associates Chartered Accountants was also found working in the establishment of the petitioner. The controversy is whether the same would make the number of persons employed in the establishment of the petitioner as 20, so as to make the provisions of the Act applicable to the petitioner.