PRAKASH CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows: -The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm named M/s. Prakash Brick field. On 31st December, 2001 the petitioner submitted an application along with requisites seeking grant of Quarry Permit for running the brickfield. The petitioner firm started functioning since January, 2002. The business of "brickfield" is a seasonal business. It ordinarily starts from the month of november and continues till the month of April. The labour strength during the seasonal period goes upto 20. For the rest of the year, it remains below 20. The petitioner-firm was registered with Employees Provident Fund Organization having Code No. WB/37435 under the provisions of the Employees Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner used to deposit along with its contributions and file monthly and/or yearly returns before the competent authority in due time in accordance with the provisions of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. In response to a letter from respondent No. 2 dated 06. 12. 2005 whereby allegations were made regarding default in payment of deposits, the petitioner sent a letter dated 23rd December, 2005 annexing thereto copies of challans for the period under consideration. But in spite of the same, the respondent No. 2 issued the notice dated 19. 1. 2006 under Section 7a of the said Act. The authority thereby claimed the amount of Rs. 1,28,524/- for the period from 1/2004 to 11/2005 without giving details of calculation and/or clarification of the computation of the amount. The petitioner in response to summons communicated a representation dated 6. 2. 2006 and sought for an adjournment. It was adjourned to 28. 2. 2006. The petitioner failed to appear on 28. 2. 2006 due to his indisposition. A notice was thereafter issued being notice dated 9. 3. 2006 upon the petitioner informing him of the next date of hearing. It was fixed on 23. 3. 2006. The petitioner sent a representation on 23rd March, 2006 through Fax along with xerox copies of deposited challans and returns for the period from 1/2004 to 12/2005. A copy of the medical certificate was also sent. The certificate issued by the local member of the Legislative Assembly and the office of Banhat Gram Panchayet to the effect that the Prakash Brickfield had remained closed since December, 2003 were also sent.

(2.) PRODUCTION in the petitioner-Firm stopped in the end of 2002. The brickfield remained completely closed on and after 31st December, 2003 after disbursing the stock already produced during 2001-2002. It was completely shut down in or around April, 2004. In spite of closure of the Firm since 31. 12. 2003 the petitioner continued to pay the contribution under the said Act upto december, 2005. Subsequently, the Birbhum Brick Field Owners Association named CHIMNEY and the office of the BL and LRO, Rampurhat-1, Birbhum issued certificate on 3. 6. 2007 and 8. 3. 2007 respectively mentioning that such brickfield had remained closed since 31. 12. 2003.

(3.) IGNORING all such steps taken by the petitioner, the authority concerned passed an ex parte order dated 10. 10. 2006/11. 10. 2006 directing, inter alia, the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,28,524/- as amount due to the respondent-authority for the period from 1/2004 to 11/2005 without passing any reasoned order and observing that the petitioner remained absent on all dates of hearing. This was followed by issuance of a notice dated 24th April, 2007 by respondent no. 2 for recovery of the said amount.