MARY GEORGE Vs. REGL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner said to be the owner of a small establishment, seeks to quash Ext. P2 order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and send back the case to the respondent who passed Ext. P-2, for disposal afresh according to law. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s MP. George & Sons, Alupuram, Alwaye. M. P. George is the husband of the petitioner. It is said that formerly this was a partnership concern consisting of M. P. George, the petitioner and their sons. After the establishment became a proprietary concern, the petitioner has been contending that it was a new concern and not a continuation of the establishment M/s M. P. George & Co. and being in the infancy she is entitled to get protection under S.16 of the Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, hereinafter called the Act. The respondent contended that the establishment of the petitioner was only a continuation of the previous partnership. There was thus a dispute between the petitioner and the Provident Fund Commissioner in this respect. While so the respondent after conducting an enquiry under S.7A of the Act, passed an order Ext. R1 bringing the concern of the petitioner under the coverage of the Act. The petitioner committed default in the payment of contributions payable under the Act. Thereupon the respondent after notice to the petitioner passed Ext. P2 order under S.14B of the Act imposing in all an amount of Rs. 2,842.10 as damages, the percentage of damages imposed varying from 25-50%. The petitioner bad given an explanation Ext. P1 for not imposing any damages on her.

(2.) Attacking Ext. P2 order, the counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the order Ext. P2 passed by the respondent is per se wrong as it was passed without considering the bona fide nature of the contentions of the petitioner in this respect and that there has been inordinate delay in taking action against the petitioner under S.14B of the Act as a result of which the petitioner bona fide believed that the respondent had dropped all the proceedings in this respect against the petitioner and that Ext. P2 order, in the circumstances amounts, to gross harassment of the petitioner and has therefore to be interfered with.

(3.) The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent by his conduct of not taking any action against the petitioner for more than 3 years made her believe that he had dropped all the proceedings and in such circumstances the passing of Ext. P2 order amounted to harassment to the petitioner. The counsel relied on a decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Mis Amin Chand v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 Punjab 441) in support of his contention.