RAMANUJAM PRESS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMANUJAM Press is owned by a partnership. The establishment of the press was found employing 22 persons during inspection by the officers of the respondent on 31-7-1964. On the basis of this inspection report, the respondent herein sent a communication dated 29-11-1965 to the petitioner herein stating that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder applied to the petitioners' establishment from 1-8-1964 and asked the petitioner to comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Act as well as the Scheme. The petitioner put forward the contention that the Act was not applicable to the petitioner's establishment since in the petitioner's establishment there were no 20 employees who have put in at least one year's service and have worked for not less than 240 days. Since the contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent, the petitioner made representations to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act. The Central Government by its communication dated 21-4-1966 came to the conclusion that the Act applied to the petitioner's establishment.

(2.) THEREAFTER by a communication dated 15-12-1966 the respondent addressed the Collector of Madras to collect a sum of Rs. 2224-75 by way of contributions and a sum of Rs. 85-75 by way of administrative charges from the petitioner herein under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is at this stage the petitioner has come to this Court and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quesh the communication of the respondent dated 29-11-1965 stating that the Act applied to the petitioner's establishment with effect from 1-8-1964 and the communication dated 15-12-1966 addressed to the Collector requesting him to recover the arrears of contribution and administrative charges under Revenue recovery Act and copy marked to the petitioner.

(3.) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition are three-fold. The first contention is that the provisions of the Act have no application to the petitioner's establishment since 20 or more persons were not employed in that establishment who had put in at least one year's service or had worked for not less than 240 days in a year; (2) the Administrative charges for a period earlier to the date of communication, namely, 29-11-1965 should not be collected; (3) the communication dated 15-12-1966 addressed to the Collector of madras was in contravention of Sub-section (3) of Section 7-A of the Act in that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before determining the quantum of the amount payable by the petitioner.