SENTHILNATHANS PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, call for the records of the proceedings of the respondent, quash his orders passed in No. B-11/tn/3257 C/enf/regl. of 1986, dated February 25, 1986, and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's establishment as a new establishment entitled to the infancy protection under Section 16 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and demand contribution under the above said Act only after the employment strength has reached the statutory minimum.

(2.) IN support of the said writ petition one Tr. Subbiah, one of the managing partners of the new partnership firm called as Senthilnathans Pharmaceuticals who is the petitioner running a pharmaceutical business has sworn to an affidavit. He has stated that the petitioner firm which had not been doing the pharmaceutical business hitherto being a new partnership came into existence in about December, 1982, and that the R. R. Pharmaceutical Distributors, a renowned firm in that line of business having a vast net work of business at Madras, Madurai, Vellore and other places was closing down its concern at Tiruchirapalli. This new firm, therefore, entered into an agreement, with it on certain specified matters. As per the said agreement the firm purchased medicines from the said R. R. Pharmaceuticals at cost price and also some of the furniture and fittings according to its need. The petitioner firm got fresh licences under the Drugs Act and registered with the sales tax and income-tax authorities and new numbers have been allotted to the petitioner by these authorities. As the premises occupied by R. R. Pharmaceuticals were available, the petitioner got a fresh tenancy from the owners of the building. The petitioner has taken some former employees on fresh appointment basis since they have been retrenched by the previous management during the closure of the said business at Tiruchirapalli on January 31, 1983, after giving suitable compensation to all of them.

(3.) IN March, 1984, the Provident Fund Inspector inspected the petitioner's premises and advised the petitioner to remit provident fund in respect of the employees working. The petitioner replied by letter dated March 23, 1984, that the firm did not fall within the purview of the Provident Fund Act, and also brought to the notice of the Inspector that it is newly established firm and the provisions of the said Act are not applicable. It also pleaded to extend the benefit of exclusion from the applicability of the Provident Fund Act to their employees. However, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, No. B11/tn/3257-E/reg of 1985, dated August 28, 1985, wherein the Commissioner had asked to implement the scheme, provisions of the said Act with effect from February 1, 1983, that is, from the date of commencement of the business, in respect of the employees by remitting the dues and submitting the respective monthly returns to the Sub-Regional Office, Tiruchirapalli, under the old code No. TN/3257-C given to the R. R. Pharmaceutical Distributors. The petitioner was also informed that if the dues were not paid within 15 days for the period from February, 1983 to July, 1985, in full, legal proceedings will be taken under the Act to recover the dues under the Revenue Recovery Act. The said order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is the subject-matter of this writ petition.