ANAND Y. PHADTE Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Swastik Enterprises and he has filed this Petition for quashing of a complaint filed by the Respondent-Provident Fund Inspector before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda, claiming that the said complaint initiated under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (the aforesaid Act), is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) In the present case, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the said Act on the basis that the establishment of the Petitioner stood covered and that there was outstanding liability under the said Act, which the establishment had not deposited. The Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the establishment stood covered under the provisions of the said Act and that contributions towards provident fund are being made. The area of dispute is confined to the question as to whether a particular allowance to be paid to the employees of the aforesaid establishment is covered under the definition of 'wages' and consequently whether the contribution towards provident fund ought to be deposited by including the component of the said allowance. According to the Petitioner, the said allowance pertains to house rent payable to the employees, which is not covered under the provisions of the said Act. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that while submitting details to the concerned authority, the Petitioner had struck off the column of Dearness Allowance (DA) and instead written House Rent Allowance (HRA) in its place. While depositing contributions and submitting returns, the Petitioner excluded the component of HRA, which is the bone of contention in the present case.

(3.) It is in this backdrop, that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 7A of the aforesaid Act. Pursuant to the said proceedings, an order dtd. 23/5/2012 came to be passed against the Petitioner. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner held that an outstanding amount of Rs.1,63,350.00 was payable on the part of the Petitioner and his establishment in the respective accounts of the employees within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.