YUVRAJ AGARWAL Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are questioning the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated June 17th, 2005 and July 14th, 2005 made under Section 7A and 8F; respectively of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the 7A order the authority determined the dues payable by the establishment of the petitioners on account of contributions and interest at Rs. 3071717/ - and Rs. 664892/ - respectively. Though the order under Section 7A was appealable, the petitioners did not prefer any appeal.

(2.) SINCE they did not pay the determined dues, the authority issued the attachment order dated July 14th, 2005 ordering the bank concerned to pay Rs. 37,36,609/ -. The writ petition was taken out on July 16th, 2005. By order dated August 12th, 2005 the petitioners were permitted to pay the amount mentioned in the attachment order in instalments. They were directed to set apart a sum of Rs. 10 lakh in a nationalized bank, and the authority was given liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law, in default of compliance with the directions by the petitioners regarding payment and security.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, I do not find any merit in the contentions. The fact that the establishment was an exempted establishment had nothing to do with its liability to pay the statutory dues to the trust concerned. The amount determined under Section 7A was to be paid by it in terms of conditions specified while granting it exemption in terms of the provisions in Section 17. It is clear from the provisions in Section 8(b) that for recovery of amount due from the establishment in terms of conditions specified under Section 17, the provident fund authority was competent to make order under Section 8F. Since it admittedly failed to pay the dues for April and May 2004, the provident fund authority was competent to initiate the proceedings under Section 7A.