HIND PRESS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was summoned to face proceedings on 07.06.2001 under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") by a notice dated 21.05.2001.

(2.) Before appearing in response to the notice, the petitioner requested the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) by letter dated 02.06.2001 to specify the issues or dispute which they were required to answer since the notice according to the petitioner was vague and did not specifically disclose any ground or reason sufficient to initiate inquiry proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act and to enable the petitioner to respond effectively to it. On 07.06.2001 the petitioner appeared before the APFC and was handed over a list of 25 persons with an oral query whether those persons were enrolled as members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme or not. The matter was adjourned to 15.06.2001. On 15.06.2001 the petitioner submitted details of the provident fund account numbers of each of the said 25 persons through two lists supplied, one containing the name of 21 persons and the other of 4 persons. It was clearly indicated that from 25 persons, 4 persons whose names figured in the second list were not employees of the petitioner M/s Hindi Press but were in fact employees of Hind Samachar Ltd, a sister concern. These four persons were members of the Provident Fund Scheme with respect to Hind Samachar Ltd. The membership numbers assigned by the Employees Provident Fund Organization were duly mentioned. The matter, however remained lingering on pending finalization though the petitioner had impressed upon the Department that facts supplied by it could easily be verified from the records of the respondent-Organization itself.

(3.) Faced with a road block in decision making by APFC and sensing that the Inquiry Officer was apparently acting with bias in not closing the matter which came to nothing, an application was moved before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar to transfer the inquiry to some other competent officer who could decide the matter which was simple and self explicit. A request was made in writing that further proceedings before the Inquiry Officer till the disposal of the transfer application ought to be stayed. That application was made on 09.07.2001.