VINOD TIWARI Vs. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated April 17, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Gwalior directing that the petitioner be detained in civil prison until next date of hearing.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was running a Motor Workshop styled. "Tiwari Motors" at Bhind road, Gwalior. A proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, Gwalior against the petitioner and in the said proceedings an order for inquiry was passed. The petitioner initially appeared in the said proceedings and contended that his establishment was not covered under the Act in as much as the number of employees working in the establishment were less than 20. When after appearing on several dates the petitioner did not appear on some dates, the Assistant Commissioner issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner by order dated March 14, 2005 . On June 7, 2005 counsel for the petitioner appeared and prayed for some time for securing presence of the petitioner and, the Assistant Commissioner fixed the case to June 8, 2005 for appearance of the petitioner. When on June 8, 2005 the petitioner did not appear, the Assistant Commissioner passed orders for issue of non- bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the warrant of arrest before this Court in a writ petition but did not succeed. Thereafter, on March 17, 2006 the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner passed an order that the petitioner be freed on bail on furnishing a bail bond and a personal bond of Rs. 10, 000 each. In the said order dated March 17, 2006, Assistant Commissioner made it clear that the bail granted is strictly subject to the condition that the employer shall, submit the summoned records on the next date of hearing i.e. on March 23, 2006. On March 23, 2006 the petitioner produced copies of his Income Tax returns for the period, 1999- 2000 to 2002-2003 and further stated before the Assistant Commissioner that the establishment was lying closed from 2000 onwards and that no records have been maintained after closure of the establishment. The matter was adjourned to March 28, 2006 when an application for adjournment was filed and the matter was again adjourned to April 10, 2006. On April 10, 2006, the Assistant Commissioner, again adjourned the matter to April 17, 2006. On April 17, 2006 the petitioner appeared in person before the Assistant Commissioner but since the petitioner did not produce the records except the Income-Tax returns, the Assistant Commissioner, directed that the petitioner be detained in civil prison until the next date of hearing.

(3.) The direction in the order dated April 17, 2006 to detain the petitioner in civil prison has been challenged, in this writ petition, we reproduce here the relevant portion of the said order dated April 17, 2006 containing the reasons for the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner to detain the petitioner in civil prison: