PRAMOD KUMAR PAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made in this writ application to the impugned orders dated 25.6.1993, 24.4.1995 and 20.5.1998 vide Annexures-1, 2 and 4 respectively passed by the opposite party No. 3 under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) The unshorn details of the case of the petitioner is that M/s. Hotel Paradise, Dhenkanal was established by the family members of Mr. Sudam Pal and Madhabananda Pal and after the death of Madhabananda Pal the said establishment was closed since pretty long period. The petitioner was neither the employer of the said establishment nor was looking after the affairs of the establishment for the disputed period, i.e., from 1980 to 1987.

(3.) Be it stated, the opposite party No. 3 without ascertaining the employer of said establishment and the employees of the establishment for the period from 1980 to 1987 issued notice to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,446.20 as determined under Section 7-A of the Act and Scheme made thereunder. The petitioner claims that he has not been offered any opportunity of being heard by the opposite party No. 3 before determining the dues to be paid. He also claims that he is not the employer of the said establishment. So, the petitioner after receipt of notice filed a Review Petition on 9.1.1995 to consider his claim. Opposite party No. 3 rejected the review petition without granting any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on 24.4.1995 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the impugned order passed by the opposite party No. 3 dated 25.6.1993 on 16.12.1994 submitted the review petition within thirty days as per usual practice although the Act and the Scheme thereunder do not provide limitation for filing of review petition.