ABDUL GADDAFI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order, passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, under Section 7(i) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, ('the Act', for short). The petitioner is running a bakery by name "MRA Bakery" and he is having business mainly on bakery items like bread, biscuits, cakes, etc. According to him, there were only 8 employees in his shop and he has been maintaining all records under different Statutes, with respect to those employees. While so, on 20.1.2004, the squad led by the Enforcement 3rd Officer, the respondent herein, conducted an inspection in his shop and, on the basis of the report prepared in that inspection, initiated proceedings against the petitioner, on an allegation that, in the inspection, the petitioner was found employed 33 employees, contrary to the records maintained by him, and shown to the 3rd respondent, during the course of inspection. On the basis of the said report, the 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act for the determination of the amount due from the petitioner as "employer" defined under Section 2(e) of the Act.

(2.) In the enquiry, the petitioner has maintained his stand that he has employed eight persons only and has maintained all the statutory records, in conformity with the persons actually

(3.) rd employed by him. But, after enquiry, the respondent rejected his application and passed Ext.P4 order with the finding that the petitioner has employed 33 workers in his shop and thereby, the establishment owned by the petitioner is an establishment covered by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder, with effect from 20.1.2004 and further directed to remit the dues and submit returns, as per the provisions within 15 days on receipt of the proceedings. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 7(i) before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate 2nd Authority also affirmed the findings of the respondent and rejected the the appeal. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings, in Exts.P4 and Ext.P5 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.