VIKAS ELECTRICALS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders dated September 8, 2010 and October 26, 2010 by which a liability upon the Petitioner has been imposed under the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the review application fifed by the Petitioner against the aforesaid orders has been rejected.

(2.) It is submitted, by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that subsequent to the initial order being passed against the Petitioner on September 8, 2010 the Petitioner had filed an application for review before the authorities bringing to their notice the account books and other facts and documents establishing the actual expenses incurred as well as the number of employees involved and the liability of the Petitioner but the authorities without passing any reasoned order simply by quoting the provisions of the Act have rejected the review application filed by the Petitioner by the impugned order dated October 26, 2010 saying that the documents filed by the Petitioner in the review application cannot be considered as they are neither new or important and could have been produced earlier during the 7A enquiry, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that had this issue been pointed out to the Petitioner during the initial enquiry, the aforesaid documents would have been produced before the authority but the authorities instead of asking him applied 25% formula for the purposes of computing labour charges and on filing a review application being filed by the Petitioner along with the documents before the reviewing authority, he has rejected the same without application of mind.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondents, who appeared on advance copy of the petition, submits that the authority has duly considered each and every aspect of the matter including the objections regarding machine and maintenance expenses and loading and unloading expenses and thereafter has rightly computed the liability of the Petitioner by taking 25% of such expenses as labour charges and in such circumstances the petition filed by the Petitioner be rejected.