MANAGEMENT OF ARPEJAY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a company known as Arpejay Investments Pvt. Limited. This is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the AIP Ltd.) The company was established on August 31, 1994. In the year 1995, the company entered into three separate lease agreements with yet another company known as Beardsell limited under the first lease agreement, from the month of March 1995, the Petitioner company took possession of the factory and started producing polystrene products. Likewise, in the month of June 1995 under the second lease agreement, it took possession of the factory called as Manali Bitumen and started producing Bitumen. Lastly, as per the third lease agreement, in the month of September 1995, the company took possession of a factory at Manali to produce extended Polystrene products. According to the Petitioner, Beardsell limited is a public limited company, which has nothing to do with the Petitioner company except the lease agreements mentioned above. The accounts of the Petitioner company and other transactions have got nothing to do with the Beardsell limited. The Petitioner company is a private limited company. According to the Petitioner, under Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1902 (unamended), the Petitioner company was exempted from paying contribution as per the provisions of the Act during the infancy period of three years from the date on which, the establishment was set up. The said provision was however, deleted from the Statute book from September 22, 1997. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, in respect of the above establishments, the Petitioner company is entitled for the exemption during the infancy period upto September 22, 1997.

(2.) However, the second Respondent by its' proceedings in H8/TN/40040/Enf/Regl./2000, dated February 17, 2000, directed the Petitioner to pay contribution by passing an order under Section 7-A of the Act. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before the first' Respondent/Appellate Authority and the same was rejected by order dated November 7, 2000 in case No. ATA209/13/2000. Challenging the above, the Petitioner has come forward with this petition.

(3.) It is contended by the Petitioner that Beardsell has got nothing to do with the Petitioner company and as a matter of fact, the establishments of the Petitioner company were-established only during the months of March 1995, June 1995 and September 1995 respectively and therefore, during the infancy period i.e. upto July 22, 1997, the Petitioner company is not liable to pay the contribution as per the provisions of the Act.