RAJASTHAN MACHINERY MART Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed that the petitioner is not covered by the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It has further been prayed that the order Anx. 11 dated 23rd July, 1982 and the order dated 2nd November, 1982 and the order dated 3rd February, 1983 and the notice dated 8th February, 1982 may be quashed and the respondent may be prohibited from proceeding with the enquiry.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership concern. The partnership concern was formed under a deed of Partnership on 1st November, 1976. A registered letter was sent by the Provident Fund Inspector, Udaipur to the petitioner concern. By this letter, the petitioner is asked to submit certain information in a required proforma. The petitioner submitted that it is not covered by the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, petitioner received another communication from the Provident Fund Inspector requiring certain more information. Thereafter, a communication was received from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and it was advised that petitioner should deposit the provident fund. It was submitted that the petitioner sent his objection that he is not covered by the Act. Ultimately, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, by his communication dated 3rd February, 1983, informed the petitioner that the matter has been examined and the establishment is covered under the Act.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent and it has been submitted that the petitioner is not coming forward to assist the Provident Fund Commissioner and in order to determine that whether petitioner's case is covered by the Act or not a notice has been given to the petitioner to place all the record before the Commissioner and, thereafter, a proper decision can be taken that whether the petitioner -concern is covered by the Act or not. It is submitted that the representative of the petitioner appeared and sought the adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 23rd March, 1983 and before matter could proceed further petitioner has filed a present writ petition and has also obtained a stay order. Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry could not be completed.