CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. HI-GRIP ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dtd. 6/9/2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which, the appeal filed by the respondent-establishment against the order dtd. 11/6/2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Sec. 7-A of the EPF Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as '1952 Act'), has been set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the aforementioned impugned order is perverse and cannot be accepted especially when assessing the respondent-establishment adverse inference was raised against the respondent-establishment as it failed to produce the record of the number of employees working in the respondent-establishment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was done before recording the assessment as to whether, 20 or more employees were working in the respondent-establishment and as per the visit conducted on 10/2/2005, a list was prepared by the team of four enforcement officers wherein, 22 employees were found working, still, the order dtd. 11/6/2012 (Annexure P-1) has been set aside by the Appelleate Tribunal on the ground that there is no enough material evidence on record to prove that the respondent-establishment had employed more than 20 workmen at any given point of time so as to be covered under 1952 Act.