DAMJIBHAI L SHAH Vs. N N GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner and proprietor of the trade mark known as Anchor used in respect of electrical accessories. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29th June 1987 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa- respondent No. 1. The said order was passed by respondent No. 1 under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952 for the sake of brevity. By the said order respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that about 46 establishments in Bombay are nothing but the branches and/or departments belonging to the petitioner formed only with the objective of subterfuging the laws meant for the purpose of social security of various employees under the Act of 1952.

(2.) THE said order is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry contemplated under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 is a quasi judicial enquiry and in order to come to conclusion about the determination of the amount from the any employer due under the provisions of the Act, reasonable opportunity should be given to the concerned employer so as to enable him to defend his case properly. It was contended by the learned Counsel Shri Ramaswami, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 failed to give such opportunity as contemplated in the enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 and, therefore, the order dated 29th June, 1987 passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal, void and inoperative and is not binding on the petitioner. Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, contended that in fact reasonable opportunity was given to the present petitioner but it is because of the attitude of the petitioner in refusing to co-operat with respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 was required to pass the said order on the basis of the evidence which was available before respondent No. 1.

(3.) SHRI Kochar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, contended that in fact it is because of the complaint made by respondent No. 2, the said enquiry against the petitioner was commenced and according to him the decision given by respondent No. 1 is legal taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.