MOHANRAJ Vs. REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged Exts. P2 and P5 proceedings of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and prays for appropriate directions setting aside the same.

(2.) The petitioner who has started a small scale unit to manufacture Household Utensils by letter dated 30-3-1983, evidenced by Ext. P1 intimated the 2nd respondent to introduce the Provident Fund scheme in the unit with retrospective effect from January 1983. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, by Ext. P2 dated 15-6-1983, replied that the scheme is applicable to the petitioner's establishment from 1980 onwards. By Ext. P3 letter dated 28-6-1983, the petitioner pointed out that he is liable to pay provident fund contribution only with effect from 1983. After remitting the contribution and dues for the year 1983 further intimation was given as evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 13-7-1983. The 1st respondent, by Ext. P5 proceedings dated 18-9-1985 informed that the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution from 1980 onwards.

(3.) The contention taken up by the petitioner is that the action of the 1st respondent in requiring the petitioner to pay contribution for the period anterior to Ext. P1 is illegal and contrary to statutory provisions and the 1st respondent is therefore to be restrained from enforcing such payment. It is stated that this small scale unit started in 1980 was a sick unit closed down due to recurring loss incurred by previous proprietor and it was at the petitioner's initiative that the authorities took steps to cover it under provident fund scheme. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Madras High Court in K. R. Subbaier v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1962-63) 23 FJR (Mad), and that of the Calcutta High Court in Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1958) 15 FJR 219, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that any demand for a back period would be illogical and oppressive and in so long as a statutory authority has not initiated action under the provisions of the Act against the prior employer and the undertaking remained undiscovered the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay contribution for any period anterior to the date of Ext. P1.