RAMPUR DISTILLERY Vs. REGIONAL P.F. COMMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises against the order dated 25.8.2011 passed in Writ C No.5987 of 1997 wherein the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition with directions to pay the amount in question along the compound interest at the rate of 12% on the entire amount which he was required to deposit under the impugned order. We have heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, Senior Advocate.

(2.) Sri Nigam has assailed the order on the ground that the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. He argues that the bare perusal of the order dated 8.10.1996 which was impugned in the writ petition relates to provident fund dues in respect of contractors employees for the period 4/1992 to 8/1993 whereas the report on which the said order is passed relates to the period May 1995 to July 1996. Before the learned Single Judge it was argued that the report relied upon was never supplied to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge after recording submission had observed that from 1996 onward on several occasions proceedings were adjourned at the instance of the employer, the learned Single Judge recorded as under :-

(3.) However, the submission, in my view, has no legs to stand. From the impugned orders it is evident that from 1996 and onwards consistently on several occasions, proceedings were adjourned at the instance of employer, i.e., petitioner. Moreover, Annexure 11 to the writ petition shows that in the presence of one Madhu Shankar Sharma, Deputy Manager, (Personnel and Legal), the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed for an inspection to be made by a squad who was also to examine membership in respect to contractor's employee. It also shows that Sri Sharma assured Provident Fund Commissioner that he shall produce the record to inspecting officer on 12.9.1996. Despite thereof, the requisite documents were not produced and thereafter, after making inspection the report was submitted and the impugned orders were passed. The opportunity was given to petitioner which he failed to avail whereafter the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned orders.?