NAV BHARAT INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are interconnected involving identical questions of fact and law. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Petitioner earlier started business in the name and style of M/s Nav Bharat Export; petitioner applied for the registration with the Provident Fund Commissioner and petitioner was allotted Code No. UP/16381 with effect from 01.10.2004; thereafter, name of the petitioner was changed from Nav Bharat Export to Nav Bharat International Ltd.; consequently, petitioner applied for the modification in the record of the Provident Fund, which was allowed by the Provident Fund Authorities and petitioner was allowed to deposit the contribution of provident fund against the Code No. UP/ 16381 on behalf of changed name i.e. M/s Nav Bharat International Ltd; vide certificate dated 18.07.2006 annexure 2 no. 3 to the writ petition, it was certified that contribution of provident fund was being deposited against the Code No. UP/16381 with effect from 01.10.2004 till 18.07.2006; thereafter, respondents sought to recover Rs. 1,22,812/ - from the petitioner allegedly outstanding against M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Department of Provident Fund submits that since earlier same code i.e. UP/16381 was allotted to M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, same code was later on allotted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner should be deemed as successor of the M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner is, thus, rightly asked to make payment of the provident fund outstanding against M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that petitioner is neither successor of M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. nor has purchased any property of M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., therefore, simply because the same code, which was earlier allotted to M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., was later on allotted the petitioner, does not mean that amount outstanding against the M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. can be recovered from the petitioner. He further contends that no notice was ever issued against the petitioner prior to passing of impugned orders.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned recovery order. As per Section 7A (3) of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, show cause notice ought to have been issued against the petitioner. Although alleged notice was issued against the M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. only, however, fact 3 remains that no notice under Section 7A (3) of the Act was ever issued against the petitioner. Had notice been issued to the petitioner calling the petitioner as to why recovery be not made against the petitioner for the outstanding amount of the contribution of the provident fund pending against its predecessor with interest, perhaps petitioner would have demonstrated that in fact, he was neither the successor nor transferee of M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. No material is placed on the record to demonstrate as to how petitioner can be said to be successor or transferee of M/s M.B. Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.