RAM CHANDRA OMKARLAL Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the order as contained in Annexure-5 which is an order passed by the authority U/s.7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 dtd.11.12.2003 and the order as contained in Annexure-7 which is an order passed by the Appellate Authority in A.T.A. No.28(10) of 2004 dtd.12.10.2010.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being an establishment was registered for the purpose of manufacturer of excisable goods particularly for sale of Tamakhu, purchase of raw bidi and sale of finished bidi. After purchase of bidis, same are levelled and branded in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner unit from the very beginning was continuing with two to three employees which was subsequently enhanced to four employees maximum. In the year 1998 the enforcement officer of the Provident Fund Department made a survey under section 13(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of the petitioner's establishment. After verification of the records of the establishment from 7/95 to 9/98 an inspection report was submitted clearly indicating that the strength of the establishment as on 10.10.1998 comes to two permanent employees and some ad hoc employees utilized on some occasions and the activities of the establishment was purely purchase of un-branded bidi and sale of Tamakhu and branded bidi only. The Provident Fund authorities have accepted the report but remained silent for long one year and after one year, one another enforcement officer was deputed who visited the establishment officer for the purpose of inspection of the records and in course of inspection of records the enforcement officer had prepared one another investigation proforma indicating therein that three persons with their pay particulars and asked the proprietor of the establishment to put his signature down below on the investigation proforma.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party, inter alia therein it has been stated that there is no infirmity in the order passed U/s.7A since the authority who has decided the proceeding U/s.7A of the Act, 1952 has provided ample opportunity to the petitioner but it never turned up and as such the final order was passed on 11.12.2003. The petitioner has failed to produce relevant reply. It has been stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the details of the workers to whom the wages was determined as per RG-12A register during the 7A proceeding.