MAHAVEER TEXTILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-establishment has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that he should be declared to be entitled for infancy period under Section 16 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952') and order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) dated May 18, 1982 followed by recovery proceedings dated August 17, 1982 Annex. 9 and 10 respectively be quashed. It is further prayed that the order passed by respondent No. 4 in exercise of his powers under Section 19a of the said Act passed on October 23, 1992 Annex. 12 to the writ petition may also be quashed.

(2.) THE aforesaid reliefs are being prayed by the petitioner-establishment on the ground, inter alia that it is an establishment which came into existence on September 3, 1979 by an instrument of partnership-deed Annex. 1 to the writ petition executed between the partners viz. Shri Shanti Lal and Smt. Premi Bai. It is also stated that prior to the commencement of the partnership, Shri Shantilal was running this concern in his individual capacity as Proprietor w. e. f. March 1, 1978, which ultimately, converted into partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Mahaveer Textiles, Sojat Road, Pali which was constituted by Shri Shanti Lal s/o. Shri Mangal Chand having 60 per cent share and Smt. Premi Bai w/o. Shri Chanan Mal having 40 per cent share. It is also alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner- establishment was never inspected by the Provident Fund Inspector or any other higher authority before the provisions of the Act of 1952 were made applicable to the petitioner-establishment. In the same paragraph, it is alleged by the petitioner-establishment that the impugned order Annex. 9 to the writ petition on May 18, 1992 was passed by respondent No. 2 without affording to the petitioner-establishment a reasonable opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 7a of the Act of 1952. According to the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the Unit of the petitioner-establishment known as Mahaveer Textiles is a separate and distinct unit. It has its separate power. Its Accounts are maintained separately. The partners/proprietor of this firm were not the partners in any other firm. The petitioner-establishment has no direct or indirect control on any other establishment and it is an independent concern. All its operations are being done in a quite independent manner.

(3.) IT is also alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that earlier to the instant writ petition, the petitioner-establishment had already filed a writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2065/82 in which notices were issued to the respondents and an ad interim stay order was granted. In the said writ petition, reply was filed by the respondents and rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the petitioner- establishment. It is further stated that the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. The aforesaid prayer was accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated April 20, 1984 Annex. 13 to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition.