HARISH CHANDER NARULA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality of the order dated 30.12.1982 passed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter in short called 'the Act'). By the aforesaid order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi upheld the coverage of the petitioners' establishment under the aforesaid Act with effect from 30.11.1966 and then ordering for the inquiry to be continued for determination of the dues payable by the petitioners.

(2.) On the allegation that M/s Indian Art Fabrics of which the petitioners were partners failed to deposit the provident fund dues for the period during December 1966 to December 1969, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act for determination of the dues payable by the establishment for the aforesaid period under the Act. Pursuant to the said notice issued, the petitioners appeared before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and took up a plea that their establishment would not come within the purview of the aforesaid Act as they were having less then 20 persons in their establishment. It was stated that at no stage, the petitioners had employed 20 or more persons in their establishment and that they used to engage weavers and winders for whom there was no fixed timing of work and that they were free to come and go at their free will and that they could also work in any other establishment if they so desired and that they had also no right to claim any service benefit nor they were entitled to any leave etc. It was, therefore, pleaded that such weavers and winders, who were engaged intermittantly by the petitioners' establishment, were contractors by themselves and were not the employees of the establishment directly or through any contractor. It was also submitted that from the list prepared by the Provident Fund Inspector itself it would be clear that there were much less than 20 persons who had put in a year's or more service and that there were only eight employees and the remaining were the weavers and winders. It was also submitted that their factory caught fire on 16.6.1975 and the said fire destroyed everything including stock machinery, accounts books and that the management did not have any intention to start the factory again. It was also stated that as none of the erstwhile alleged workers had approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for payment, it would be futile exercise collecting any dues if the scheme is applied to the establishment as collection would not be possible for the establishment. The aforesaid contentions taken up by the petitioners' were considered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the light of the records and upon appreciation thereof, it was held by the Commissioner by the order dated 30.12.1982 that the said contentions had no merit and that the petitioners' establishment was rightly held to be covered under the provisions of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition was filed in this Court challenging the legality of the aforesaid order.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners raised before me similar pleas to contend that the petitioners' establishment could not have been brought within the purview of the aforesaid Act under any circumstances.