V.K. JOHNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the Tribunal's order setting aside the proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was confirmed.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal is that the respondent -employer was running cashew factories in many parts of the State and by Ext.P1, based on an inspection, the trainees employed in such factories were sought to be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. By Ext.P1 the Managing Director of the respondent -Corporation was directed to satisfy the dues in respect of the trainees, failing which proceedings under Section 7A(1)(b) of the Act was threatened. It is the contention of the learned counsel that an appeal was filed against Ext.P1, which was later withdrawn, therefore abandoning such challenge. Hence the respondent - Corporation cannot be permitted to challenge the subsequent orders passed under Section 7A(1)(b) of the Act, viz.Exts.P3 and P4, which is only a consequence of Ext.P1. Essentially the contention of the appellant is that Ext.P1 is an order under sub -clause(a) of Section 7A and Exts.P2 and P3 consequential orders computing the contributions for the period 10/2007 to 4/2009 and 5/2009 to 10/2009 respectively.

(3.) LOOKING at the provisions of the Act, sub -clause (a) and (b) of Section 7A(1) speaks of adjudication of a dispute arising from the applicability of the Act and determination of the amounts due under the provisions of the Act. Section 7.1 also provides inter alia for an appeal from an order under sub - section (1) of Section 7A. However, it cannot be understood that there has to be two separate orders under sub -clause (a) and (b). On a reading of Ext.P1 also, there was a prima facie finding entered and the Managing Director was directed to remit the dues on failure of which an enquiry under section 7A(1)(b) was contemplated. It is also pertinent that Ext.P3, which is now styled as a consequential order elaborately considers the issue whether trainees are 'employees' as defined under the Act. Ext.P4 order for the subsequent period also refers only to the findings in Ext.P3 and not Ext.P1. Hence the issue decided under clause (a) and (b) both were up for consideration in the appeal filed against Exts.P3 and P4 orders.