VALAVI & CO. Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of paper and paper products. Government of India came out with a scheme called Employees Enrollment Campaign effective from 1/1/2017 to 31/3/2017 and subsequently was extended till 30/6/2017 as per the press release Exts.P1 and P1(a).

(2.) A notice was issued to the petitioner for holding an enquiry under Sec. 7A of the EPF and MP Act. On appearance certain documents were submitted in support of claim of exemption. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner declined the exemption for payment of dues under the EPF Act only on the ground that petitioner did not make the payment of 12% interest under Employment Enrollment Campaign (hereinafter referred to as 'EEC', for short). Since, according to the petitioner there was an error apparent on the record as per the order of enquiry under Sec. 7A, a Review Petition under Sec. 7B of EPF and MP Act was preferred giving the details that there were twenty four (24) employees who were eligible for claiming the benefit of EEC Scheme. During intervening period petitioner, on 28/11/2018, deposited an amount of Rs.9,67,454.00 (Rupees nine lakh sixty seven thousand four hundred and fifty four only) and also expressed willingness to deposit without any further interest.

(3.) Smt.Dr.Thushara James, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the orders under challenge are appealable, since both of them suffer from a jurisdictional error and non adherence to the contents of the EEC Scheme, availment of the statutory appeal would be only a farcical exercise, for, an amount under the EEC Scheme had been deposited though belatedly. The firm had repeatedly been asking, as evident from Ext.P5, of the details of the aforementioned scheme so that the twenty four employees could avail the benefit of the said scheme and taken out of the applicability of EPF and MP Act. But the respondents neither before the proceedings under Sec. 7A or 7B much less in this Court, vide statement, have not disclosed the particulars and therefore not only this Court but the petitioner had remained in oblivion, thus, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside.