KESARWANI AND COMPANY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

(2.) By the impugned order dated August 4, 2006 passed under Section 7-A read with Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, a liability of payment of over Rs. 19 lacs has been imposed on the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed without considering as to whether the petitioner is a manufacturer of tobacco or not, and as such, whether the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the petitioner firm. It has further been submitted that the objection of the petitioner filed on July 25, 2006, in response to the show cause notice dated July 7, 2006, has also not been considered. It has been urged that since the petitioner had less than 20 employees, their establishment would not be covered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the entire proceedings and notice were thus baseless and misconceived.

(3.) Although by the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 has arrived at a finding that the petitioner had employed more than 20 persons, which included the staff, labourer and contract workers, but Sri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 could not show from the impugned order as to on what basis such a finding has been arrived at. The impugned order is completely silent regarding the basis of arriving at such finding and all that has been said is that since the petitioner-Company has an office in Mumbai also, the record of which has not been produced, hence it can be determined that they had employed more than 20 employees. In my view, the same cannot be the basis of arriving at such a finding.