SUNIL KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants-M/s. Kumar and Biju Associates, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P38 order issued by the 1st respondent under Sec. 7B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as also Ext.P40 order issued by the 5th respondent Tribunal rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order.

(2.) The short facts, necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is as under: The petitioner claims that there were only three employees working in the firm. However, by Ext.P2 notice dtd. 1/1/2007, the 1st respondent herein applied the provisions of the Act as regards 28 employees said to be working with the firm. Later, adjudication was carried out under Sec. 7A of the Act. An ex parte order at Ext.P6 was issued by the 1st respondent herein dtd. 10/4/2007 holding that the petitioner is to satisfy Rs.4,95,819.75 under Sec. 7A of the Act. The above proceedings were finalised on the basis of the report dtd. 29/12/2006 of the Enforcement Officer to the effect that at the time of their visit to the premises of the petitioner, there was an attendance register containing the names of 41 employees of which two were partners and 11 were students. The petitioner took up a stand that the 41 employees, whose names figured in the attendance register, were the employees of seven different firms working in the same premises; all of whom signed in the same register since the administrative control of the staff and coordination of the establishments were with the Manager of the firm M/s. Kumar and Biju Associates. However, this contention is not accepted by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 order.

(3.) The petitioner, in such circumstances, has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext. P38 order issued by the 1st respondent as also Ext.P40 order issued by the 5th respondent.