ONKAR SINGH LALIT KUMAR Vs. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed orders dated 11.08.1997 and 04.09.1997 (Annexures P/8 and P/9 respectively).

(2.) Petitioner is operating M/s Brick kiln, which are into brick manufacturing. Respondents have issued notice on 101997 to the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of Provident Fund dues for the period from 1/95 to 1/96 under Section 7-A of the Employees, Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1952"). Date and time was fixed as 28.01997 at 11.00 A.M. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the instructions of an official of the respondents by name one Sh. A.S. Noor, petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. Petitioner never participated in the process of proceedings conducted under Section 7-A of Act, 1952, whereas respondents have proceeded to determine the Provident Fund on 11.08.1997. Thereafter, on 04.09.1997 revised order has been passed while deducting certain amounts. Petitioner is stated to have not aware of the assessment order, as well as, revised order. It was noticed by the petitioner only in the year 2011. Consequently, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected petitioner's appeal on 01.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate authority's order, petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court. This Court disposed of petitioner's writ petition i.e. CWP No. 5957 of 2011 on 06.04.2015 remanding the matter to the appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh. Thus, the appellate authority passed a fresh order on 04.09.2015 (Annexure P/14). Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before 7-A proceedings, petitioner has not been heard. No notice was given to the petitioner for appearance. It was further submitted that wages of Labourers cannot be considered for the entire period as they were into manufacturer of bricks and it is a seasonal work. In support of this, he relied on documents (Annexure P/15) to show that petitioner company was running during the period from 01.04.1994 to 04.07.1994, 19.11.1994 to 17.01.1995, 01.04.1995 to 10.07.1995 and 01.12.1995 to 09.01.1996. Thus, in a year, labourers were discharging work for few months. To that extent, determination of Provident Fund for the whole year is contrary to the factual aspect.