AJMERI GOLD FINGERS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Parihar waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) Officers of respondent No.1 visited the establishment of the petitioner and on inspection of the site on 31/3/2005, recorded the names of persons who were working in the petitioner's factory. They turned out to be more than 20. Based on that observation, action was initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said action ended against the petitioner in as much as an order came to be passed by respondent No.1 on 28/3/2007. By the said order, respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has appointed 20 or more than 20 persons in its establishment and therefore the provisions of the said Act are made applicable to them. The petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid order and that is how the petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal in Employees Fund Appellate Tribunal being Appeal A.T.A. No.394(9)2007. The learned Member of the Tribunal, i.e. respondent No.2 decided the said appeal and rejected the same on 15/9/2011.