MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Exts. P4 and P5 by which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after making an enquiry under paragraph 26B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (EPF Scheme for short) held that the 3rd respondent was eligible for membership under the EPF scheme with effect from 17.6.1986 to 31.7.1995 and from 1.5.1987 to 25.11.2000. Subsequently Ext. P5 order was issued correcting the period of eligibility for membership mentioned in Ext. P4 as with effect from 17.6.1986 to 31.7.1995 and from 1.5.1997 to 25.11.2000.

(2.) Petitioner challenges the orders Exts. P4 and P5 on the ground that the 3rd respondent had already left the petitioner as early as on 16.11.1998, receiving all the benefits and he had given Ext. P2 statement in writing that all his claims with petitioner were settled in full. According to the petitioner, he worked under it as Correspondent only as per Ext. P1 order issued on 26.5.1995 and after settling the claims as per Ext. P2 in the year 1998, he approached the 1st respondent for the first time in the year 2005. The first respondent thereupon conducted an enquiry as in the case of an enquiry under Section 7A and without considering the objections and without considering the inability of the management to produce the records, it entertained the highly belated claim to the prejudice of the petitioner.

(3.) The 3rd respondent was appointed as a correspondent under the petitioner. He approached the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner with Ext. P2 (a) application alleging that the employer M/s. Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. who is the petitioner herein did not remit his Employees Provident Fund ('EPF' for short) contribution for the period from 1.9.1986 to 31.7.1995 and after deducting the PF contribution from his salary for the period from 1.5.1997 to 31.7.1998, he did not remit the same despite his repeated requests. Since objections were raised as to the authority of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the application, the matter was considered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.