YOUNUS MOHAMMAD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order No. PFC /3631/rec/mp/ XVII / E. III / 90q, dated 1. 6. 1983, passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mad-hya Pradesh, Indore (Annexure-F) and order No. PFC / 3651 / MP / Rec / XVII/e. 1 / 3780, dated 27. 8. 1984, passed by the said Commissioner (Annexure-L): as also section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), has been alleged to be ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Rosy Dyers and Dry Cleaners, Bhopal, with its head office at Itwara and branches at Ghoda Nakkas and Peergate, Bhopal. It is no longer in dispute that there are 18 regular employees of the petitioner in the aforesaid establishments collectively; and Hakeemud-din and Ahmad Quraishi, who are Darner and Dyer, respectively, are working on payment of consideration for the work executed by them.

(3.) ON physical verification after inspection of the establishments, Shri M. N. Tarn-han, P. F. I. (Grade 1), Indore, gave his report dated 15. 4. 1981 (Annexure-R-l) stating that there were 25 employees working in the establishments of the petitioner. A proposal was made that the establishments of the petitioner be provisionally covered under Section 3 of the Act from April, 1981. The respondents, therefore, issued a letter dated 8. 5. 1981 (Annexure-R-II) to the petitioner intimating that his establishments are covered under the aforesaid Act. A code number was, accordingly, allotted to the petitioner. The respondents, on 27. 7. 1981, advised the petitioner vide Annexure-R-V for complying with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 12. 10. 1981 (An-nexure-A) was served on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Act inspite of the notices (Annexures-A-II and RV ). It was alleged that the petitioner has committed default for the period commencing from May 1981 to July, 1981. Another show cause notice dated 3. 12. 1981 was served on the petitioner complaining of the breach in compliance of the previsions for the period from August 1981 to October 1981 (An-nexures-3 or R-VI ). The petitioner, thereafter, contested the applicability of the Act to his establishments, vide letter dated 7. 12. 1981 (Annexure-C ). A request was made by him to supply the copy of the report, on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against him covering the establishments under the Act. The respondents submitted their reply to the said letter vide Annexure-R-VII dated 21. 12. 1981.