MIDLANDS PVT LTD Vs. REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner (the employer) was entitled to the benefit of the principles of natural justice before passing an order under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (compendiously 'the Act') to ascertain as to whether the provisions of the Act were applicable to the establishment and whether the petitioner must appear and co-operate in the enquiry held for that purpose, are short questions that fall for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated April 6, 1993 (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition) whereby the petitioner was directed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to produce records in an enquiry under Section 7-A(1) of the Act and also directing the employees of the establishment to produce their evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. May 5, 1993 and for direction to quash the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act and also for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from conducting the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition lie in a narrow compass and they are these.

(3.) In connection with the enquiry under Section 7-A (1) of the Act, the enforcement officers, Kanpur, came to the petitioner's establishment on April 29, 1992 and on May 28, 1992 and asked for the documents and records, which were produced, and the records were examined and certain questions were also put to the workmen. There were other establishments in the same premises where the petitioner's establishment was situate, but they have separate registration. There are ten workmen working in the petitioner's establishment, which was a private limited company. Thereafter, the petitioner received no information except a letter dated July 14, 1992 from the office of the respondents requiring him to produce documents in respect of petitioner's company and other firms. Itappears that the respondents reached the conclusion without hearing the petitioner and without affording any opportunity about the number of the employees and other facts necessary to establish that the petitioner was liable to make contribution in respect of the provident fund. According to the petitioner, there are errors apparent on the face of the record, and the impugned order deserves to be quashed, inasmuch as Paragraph 26-B of the Scheme was not relevant.