ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION Vs. GOLDEN FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, POST INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, has put a challenge to the Appellate Order, which had been passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in the matters of ATA No. 468(21)2009, "M/s. Golden Furniture Industries Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner", as decided by the judgment dtd. 7/10/2010. As a consequence of the impugned judgment, the appeal which had been preferred by the respondent, was allowed, consequently resulting into setting aside of the order which was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 3/6/2009. In fact on the initiation of the proceedings under sec. 7A of the Act, it was rather based on the premise, that the organization of the respondent whether it would be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, and they would be liable to pay the amount due under sec. 7A of the Act, because of the fact that the organization of the respondent is alleged by the petitioner to have employed more than 20 employees, and hence the exemption granted under the Act, to the units employing less than 20 employees, would not be available to the respondent/organization, and consequently the proceedings, when it was held before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, as decided on 3/9/2010, it had ultimately assessed the arrears of the EPF amount, due to be made payable by the respondent organization for the period from 14/5/2004 to 31/3/2008, as the sum of Rs.4,57,123.00 it was based on a premise, that according to the interpretation given by the court of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, it had come to a conclusion that the respondent Organization, was employing more than 20 employees, and hence it would be covered by the provisions of the Act, and the provisions of Sec. 7A would be deemed to have been defaulted.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Appellate Order dtd. 7/10/2010, cannot be sustained for the reason being that for the purpose of coming to a logical conclusion with regards to the number of employees, who are working in the organization of the respondent at the relevant time and to bring it within the ambit of Act of 1952, the inference drawn, that there were 17 employees, since it was based on the assessment, and the interpretation given to the attendance register, it would per se erroneous, because, according to the contention of the petitioner, and as per the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2021 (1) SCC 193, "Panther Security Service Private Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization and another". Learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly drawn the reference to the paragraph No. 12, of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) In fact, the wider principles, which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, in the said findings, which has been recorded in paragraph No. 12 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn an inference from the statistical figures provided in the balance-sheet, which were reflected in the balance-sheet pertaining to the particular organization, which was the subject matter of the consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court which related to for the financial years' i.e. for 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, wherein, based upon the amount which was reflected in the balance-sheet, the inference was drawn that the organization of the appellant, therein, had more than 20 employees on its own, based on the figures shown in the balance sheet as invested under salary heads.