NAGPAL TRADERS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner files Supplementary Affidavit. The same is taken on record. Heard on the interim relief application.

(2.) THE impugned notice has been assailed mainly on two grounds- firstly, that the notice for review was issued after a lapse of more than 45 days. Para 79-A of the Scheme provides the period of limitation as 45 days for review of the order. The proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 7b of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (for short the Act) provides that such Officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned notice no grounds for review have been mentioned. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice issued under Section 7b of the Act and the proceedings initiated on the basis of such notice are void.