TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED CHENNAI Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited,an undertaking of the Tamil Nadu Government.The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated April 11, 2000, to direct the respondent not to enforce the order of withdrawal of relaxation until the petitioner finally evolves an appropriate procedure in accordance with law for the coverage and protection of the contract employees.

(2.) . The petitioner being an undertaking of the State Government, they had applied for the grant of exemption from the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The same is pending for consideration till now. In the meantime, a relaxation order was issued by the respondent. The petitioner establishment was functioning all these years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. They have been complying with the suggestions and directions as per the relaxation order. In the month of December, the respondent had in fact, recommended to the Central Provident Funds Commissioner about the release of remaining 15 per cent of the P.P. amount in the form of securities from various branches of all the units at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said action of the respondent would confirm the fact that the Employees Provident Fund Trust of the petitioner establishment had been functioning and administering the affairs of the Trust to the satisfaction of the respondent except for certain minor irregularities. The Inspection Register was also maintained by the petitioner which will amply prove that periodical inspection was being done by the respondent at regular intervals. After 1997, the respondent visited the petitioners establishment only on August 11, 1999 and August 16, 1999. The respondent had made eight observations and had directed the petitioner to report about the compliance and the action taken thereon before September 5, 1999. Subsequent to the inspection by letter dated September 10, 1999, the respondent had taken a totally different attitude by reiterating the irregularities noticed during the inspection. It is further contended that without any notice to the petitioner, the respondent had withdrawn the relaxation order granted to the petitioner with effect from October 1, 1999.

(3.) . The petitioner had replied by a D.O. Letter dated August 24, 1999 requesting the respondent to revoke the withdrawal of relaxation by accepting the reasons stated by the petitioner for not complying with some of the conditions. The respondent by their letter dated October 21, 1999 kept the earlier order in abeyance and had stated that the petitioner should carry out all the observations within three months and report compliance. On subsequent inspection the respondent had found that all the observations have been duly complied with by the petitioner. In the mean time, the Enforcement Officers had also requested the petitioner to provide the list of contractors, number of workmen engaged by the contractor and the amount of wages paid by the contractor. As per the undertaking given by the petitioner, they have submitted the entire list of contractors and their addresses together with the amounts paid to them.