SEYADU BEEDI COMPANY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the second respondent, being the competent authority, under the Act has issued notice under Section 7-A, calling the petitioner to show cause for deposit the contribution. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 28.03.2012, pointing therein that the demand is not competent, in view of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the employees, for whom, notice of demand has been issued, are not the employees of the petitioner.

(3.) THE Writ Petition is, prima facie, premature, as the very object of filing reply to the show cause notice is to inform the competent authority that no proceedings can be proceeded with nor provident fund contribution claimed qua the employees mentioned in notice, in view of the decision of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.