RAJCO SPINNING MILLS Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by Rajco Spinning Mills is for quashing the order dated May 23, 1994 of the first respondent, the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, Madras.

(2.) AS per the said order, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 18, 104 for the period April, 1992 to September 1992 as employees provident fund contribution together with family pension. According to the affidavit filed in support of the petition it appears, the petitioner-firm consists of only three partners and the persons who associated earlier with the firm and who have gone away from the firm have agreed to pay the said demand as per the release deed dated June 13, 1993 and hence the present petitioner is not liable. Further, it is also alleged in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as follows;

(3.) BUT, I find from the communication sent by the second respondent dated May 16, 1994 a copy of which has been filed in the typeset that the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry under Section 7-A, of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, regarding the abovesaid employees' provident fund contribution due on May 6, 1994, and that nobody attended the said enquiry on the said date viz. , May 6, 1994, and that hence the enquiry was adjourned to June 1, 1994. This document itself shows that what has been stated in paragraph 6 is factually not correct. While the aforesaid document says that nobody attended the enquiry on May 6, 1994 the petitioner makes a false averment in the affidavit stating that their representative appeared for the enquiry on May 6, 1994. That apart, the above referred passage in the affidavit states that after May 6, 1994, the enquiry was adjourned to July 8, 1994. But, actually as per the abovesaid document, the enquiry was adjourned to June 1, 1994, and not to July 8, 1994. Here again, there is a misstatement of fact. That apart, in the copy of the alleged release deed produced in the typeset, the second page is missing. When I asked for it, counsel could not give the missing pag;e. Anyway, even though the third page of the release deed copy says that V. Subramaniam, A. Balakrishnan and Kulandai Raj were retired "partners", the affidavit states that they were not partners at all even originally. What is stated in the affidavit in paragraph 2 is that the abovesaid V. Subramaniam, A. Balakrishan and Kulandai Raj were only "to associate with the firm and discharge the debts. . . . The said three persons had not been inducted as partners of the firm. " This is again a false statement in the affidavit. That apart, the impugned order dated May 23, 1994, only states as follows: