MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 31.05.2010 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF and MP Act"?) and the subsequent order of review dated 23.09.2013 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, had established a factory at Uravaiyary Village, Mangalam Road, Pondicherry. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of shoe uppers. The company was covered under the EPF and MP Act from the year 1992. The petitioner claims that they are regularly paying contributions for the employees' share as well as employer share. On account of certain genuine reasons, the company was unable to pay the contribution, since the company has incurred losses. A reference has also been made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and a case has been registered in Case No. 359/2000. The company was declared as a Sick Industrial Company and IDBI was appointed as the operating agency under Section 17(3).

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that on 17.09.2002, the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund issued an order under Section 7-A of the EPF and MP Act wherein, he directed the petitioner company to remit the contributions of Employees Provident Fund, Pension Fund and the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance in respect of trainees enrolled from the date of engagement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner company filed an application for review under Section 7-B of the EPF and MP Act on the ground that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and the order is not a speaking one. The review petition was taken on file by the 1st respondent on 06.10.2003 and after a hearing fixed by him, the Enforcement Officer filed a report stating as follows:-