SERVICE CLUB Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of above-mentioned two petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 10011 and 10237 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In both the petitions, the petitioner is Service Club, Amritsar. The prayer is for quashing the assessment orders dated 11.2.2003 and 21.10.2003 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (for short, 'the Commissioner') and orders dated 19.5.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), upholding the orders of assessment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner briefly referring to the facts of the case, namely, that assessment of the provident fund dues of the petitioner for the period from January, 1998 to March, 2001 and April, 2001 to June, 2003 was made by the Commissioner vide orders dated 11.2.2003 and 21.10.2003, respectively. The orders were impugned before the Tribunal. The appeals have been dismissed. It is not disputed that in proceedings before the Commissioner, the petitioner remained unrepresented and the assessment of provident fund dues was made on the basis of the dues assessed for the month of December, 1997. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire amount assessed by the Commissioner has already been deposited. While placing reliance upon Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and others, 2001 1 SCT 429 and Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 2 SCT 724, the submission is that unless the beneficiaries are identified, the amount of provident fund cannot be recovered. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') is meant for the benefit of the employees. Unless the beneficiaries are identified, the amount recovered from the petitioner will not be credited to any of the employees' accounts, rather, the same will go to the coffers of the employees' provident fund organization, where already crores of rupees is lying unclaimed, which is against the scheme of the Act.

(3.) He further submitted that the reason for petitioner's non-representation before the Commissioner was that during the period in question, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for demolition of the building, from where it is operating. The Club is in existence from British time. It is operating from a heritage building. In fact, after December, 1997, the activities in the Club had been reduced considerably. They were not employing employees as were in service in December, 1997. He further submitted that once the amount assessed by the Commissioner has already been paid, the petitioner be given opportunity to produce its record so that appropriate assessment could be made and the amount, which already stands deposited, is credited to the accounts of the employees, who are entitled to it and for whose benefit the Act has been enacted. The balance, if any, be adjusted for the period subsequent thereto.