JOHN M. K. Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the writ petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 23584 of 2011 against the judgment dated 31/08/2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The short facts of the case are summarized as follows: The appellant is conducting a factory manufacturing wooden furniture, since 1982. The appellant has a small workshop for the purpose. In the factory, there were disputes between the management and the workmen which ultimately resulted in retrenchment of 24 employees out of the 42 who were originally working. It is stated that some of the remaining workers also ultimately left the service of the appellant, thereby reducing the number of his work force to 18. While so, the first respondent issued notices proposing to cover the establishment under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The appellant disputed the coverage by filing objections and producing documents in support of his contention that the establishment did not employ the stipulated number of 20 workers. However, the first respondent by Ext.P3 held that the Act was applicable to the establishment and directed the appellant to remit contributions in respect of his employees for the period from Sept., 1989 to March, 1994. The appellant challenged the said proceedings in appeal before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. However, the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P7 order. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P7.

(3.) It was contended that Exts. P3 and P7 were arbitrary, ultra vires and liable to be set aside. The contentions of the appellant were refuted by the first respondent. After considering the contentions, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding that, since the establishment had employed more than 20 workers at one point of time, in view of S.1(3) and (5) of the Act the coverage would continue though the number of employees may have dropped, at some later point of time. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that this appeal is filed.