HITESH INDUSTRIES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER (II)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order (Annexure-B) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, preferred an appeal, but, after dismissal of the same, they are before this Court with a submission that the authorities were absolutely unjustified in holding that petitioner No.1-Establishment was having more than 20 employees, therefore, the provisions of the Employee's Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ?Sthe Act?? for short) would apply.

(2.) Shri R.D. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners, after taking me through the records, submitted that the documents, on the basis of which the action was proposed against the petitioners, were not supplied to the petitioners, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be quashed.

(3.) Shri P. J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent, after taking me through paragraph-4 of the counter-affidavit dated 27th June, 2001 filed by Shri Alkesh Harilal Jotani, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, submitted that on 7th February, 1997, the said documents were sent to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners' submission is wrong.