DIAMOND ELECTRONICS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMUNICTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm is engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances. Ramesh Rai is the Sole proprietor of the firm. He is in fact the petitioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Commissioner) respondent No. 1 called upon him to pay Rs, 4213.50 and Rs. 179.25 under S. 8 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (the Act). The assessment was made under S. 7-A of the Act on 20th April, 1967. The arrears of provident fund were for the period from April, 1965 to March, 1967. The proprietor was asked to pay the amount. He failed. The Commissioner sent the recovery to the Collector. The Collector called upon the petitioner to pay the amount

(2.) On 12th June, 1968 the petitioner brought a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20th April, 1967.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has raised four points. The first and foremost he argued that no opportunity was given to him by the Commissioner before making the assessment under S. 7-A of the Act. It is true that under S. 7-A "no order determining the amount due from any employer shall be made under sub-s. (1), unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case" (see Sec. 7-A (3)). Therefore what has to be seen is: Was an opportunity afforded to the petitioner?