S. SREEKUMAR Vs. EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner preferred against the order of the Assessing Authority under Ss. 7-A & 7-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, fixing the amount of liability to Rs.75,000..00

(2.) The contention of the Petitioner in short is that he is the proprietor of M/S. Mani's Family Mart Supermarket engaged in the sale of grocery, had employed only 9 permanent workers and kept 14 other temporary Employees. The controversy pertains to the period June 2006 to November 2006. The Inspector of the ESI inspected the record of the Petitioner and found that all the Employees including the trainees exceed minimum number of 20 persons and therefore, the contribution was required to be paid. The Petitioner produced the muster roll to establish that only 9 number of Employees were engaged and trainees would not come within the definition of 'Employee' under Sec. 2(f). For the same period, proceedings under the Employees State Insurance Act were initiated wherein the findings were in favour of the Petitioner that the number of Employees kept in respect of the particular period were only 9. The Writ Petition filed against the said order has also been dismissed.

(3.) The appellate authority completely swayed away from the observations of the Assessing Authority regarding the non submission of proof with regard to the number of Employees whereas the muster roll/wage register are part and parcel of the record of the authorities. Thus, the order is wholly perverse and liable to be dismissed.