PREM CHAND Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed this writ petition stating that he is a registered A-Class Contractor and the work which he performed is not of much high value, hence he does not require more than 8-10 permanent employees in his Establishment and even these employees include his family members as well and requests that the notices dated April 12, 1991 and May 11, 1993 and the order dated June 8, 1994 which was passed in pursuance of these notices, may kindly be quashed and set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner dated April 12, 1991 whereby the petitioner was informed that he is required to deposit the amount in accordance with the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act of 1952) for the period between November, 1980 to February, 1991 and this amount is to be deposited within the period of ten days failing which the respondent would be free to initiate action under Section 14 of the Act of 1952.

(2.) THE petitioner immediately submitted its reply through registered post to the respondent stating therein that the Establishment of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Act of 1952 as the workers employed by the petitioner are not more than 8-10. The petitioner also submits that the nature of employment of the labour are purely casual in nature and they have been given work on daily wage basis.

(3.) THE petitioner received another notice dated May 11, 1993. The replies to the notice issued by the respondent were immediately given after receipt of such notice from time to time regularly.