C.ALBIN RABY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner establishment was not covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. An inspection of the Writ petitioner's premises was undertaken and the authority came to the conclusion that the establishment will have to come under the coverage of the Act. An order under Sec. 7(A) of the Act was passed on 09.06.1997. The petitioner questioned the same by filing W.P.Nos.18519 and 18520 of 1997. The Honourable High Court by order dated 25.02.2003 allowed the Writ petitions and remitted the matter to the file of the authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Following the order of remand, the authority after verification of the necessary books came to the conclusion that there were 14 employees/workers in the establishment as on 05.04.1995. It was further noted that as per Day Book, there were 4 contract workers on that date. It was further noted that one scavenger was also engaged. This takes the number of employees to 19 workers. For applying the provisions of the Act, the establishment must have engaged at least 20 persons. But even according to the second respondent, only 19 persons were employed in the Writ petitioner's establishment. But then, the second respondent took note of the Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet of the establishment and noted that a sum of Rs. 2,06,209.00 was shown as sizing charges paid by the establishment. The authority came to the conclusion that sizing work cannot done without the employment of a certain number of workers. Taking into account the quantum of sizing charges, the authority came to be conclusion that this would represent the wages of about 10 employees. The second respondent conjectured that the Writ petitioner must be made liable to pay contribution for 29 workers. To this effect an order dated 24.11.2003 was passed. Challenging the same, the Writ petitioner moved the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal by order dated 12.10.2010 dismissed the Writ petitioner's appeal filed in ATA No.177(13)2004. The same is under challenge in this Writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Writ petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Employees' Provident Fund.

(3.) The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions set out in the counter affidavit and called upon this Court to sustain the order impugned in this Writ petition.