HOTEL INDRAPRASTHA Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition against Ext.P.3 order passed by the respondent under Section 7.A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which the establishment has been included under the provisions of the Act with effect from December 1996, as also against Ext.P.8 order by which the appeal against Ext.P.3 order is dismissed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's bar hotel is at Mavelikkara and that they are employing only seven regular employees and twelve trainees. The Enforcement Officer of the Alleppey office conducted an inspection in this hotel in May 1998 and found that the petitioner was employing more than twenty employees and it is liable to be included under the Act. After a prolonged and protracted proceedings, Ext.P3 order was passed on 30/05/2003, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, finally concluding that the Act would apply the petitioner under Section 1(3)(a) and (b) of the Act and the scheme thereunder with effect from 31/12/1996. The managing partners and others of the petitioner was therefore directed to comply with the requirements under provisions.

(3.) The respondent has referred to the proceedings initiated by it subsequent to the inspection conducted and the opportunities afforded to the petitioner several times and the circumstances under which the respondent, finally issued Ext.P3 order on the basis of directions issued in O.P.No.38083/2001.