REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the EPF Authority as against the order of the first respondent/EPF Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A.No.433(13) 2012 dtd. 11/3/2013.

(2.) The petitioner/EPF Authority has initiated an assessment proceedings under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as against the 2nd respondent Management that they have failed to pay contribution to some of the casual employees. The petitioner/EPF Authority has assessed the liability of the 2nd respondent Management under Sec. 7-A of the Act as Rs.8,24,864.00 for the period from July 2008 to March 2010, by assessing the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of the 2nd respondent Management for the year 2009-2010 and also passed an order under Sec. 7-A of the Act on 2/4/2012. The order passed under Sec. 7-A of the Act has been challenged by the 2nd respondent Management before the 1st respondent/EPF Appellate Tribunal under Sec. 7-I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act in A.T.A.No.433(13) 2012. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dtd. 11/3/2013, allowed the appeal filed by the Management that the workers, for whom the contribution has to be paid, have not been identified by the Authority. As against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dtd. 11/3/2013, the EPF Authority has preferred this writ petition only in the year 2021, ie. after a period of eight years.

(3.) Even now, the EPF Authority is not having any data with regard to the eligible workers, for whom the contribution under Sec. 7-A of the Act, has been arrived by the Authority. The 2nd respondent Management has also claimed that they are not having any record as of now.