ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged by the Enforcement Officer that when the Second Respondent's establishment was inspected on 24/7/2009, it was found that 66 Employees working therein, were not enrolled under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In this regard, the Authority under the Act had conducted an inquiry, in which, it is stated that the Second Respondent had not produced any proof to substantiate the staff's strength of the establishment and therefore, an ex parte order under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, came to be passed through an Order, dtd. 31/8/2010. Challenging the same, the establishment had preferred an Appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and through the impugned Order, dtd. 25/8/2014, the determination made in the order under Sec. 7-A of the Act dtd. 31/8/2010, was set aside and the Appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the Department has filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that inspite of 20 opportunities given, the establishment had not produced any evidence to substantiate their staff's strength. He further submitted that on verification of records of the establishment and the inspection conducted, it was found that 66 Employees were not enrolled as Provident Fund members with effect from June 2009. As such, the inquiry was concluded from the period between 07/2007 to 03/2010. He further submitted that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained since the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the report of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), based on which, the non-enrolled Employees were ascertained and accordingly, determination was made.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal since the entire determination was made on the basis of ESIC report, which was neither furnished to the Second Respondent nor was reflected in the order passed under Sec. 7-A of the Act.