ORIENTAL AGENCIES JAIPUR Vs. R P F C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 3rd September, 1977. passed by respondent No. 1 and to restrain the respondents from recovering Rs. 20, 563/- and Rs. 7,152/- as mentioned in sub - paras (b), (c) and (d) of the prayer.

(2.) PUT briefly, the facts of the case are that on 9th November, 1976, the petitioner received a letter dated 8th November, 1976 from the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner advising him to report compliance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the PF Act ). In response to the said letter, the petitioner appeared before the Asstt. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 10th November, 1976 and explained his case. Inspite of this the petitioner received a summons under Sec, 7-A of the PF Act from respondent No. 1 to appear before him on 11th January, 1977 to produce the relevant records for the period from November 1974 to September 1976 and to produce evidence for conducting an enquiry for the determination of the liability under the PF Act. A representative of the petitioner observance of the summons appeared before respondent No. 1. On behalf of the petitioner, a note of inspection made by the Provident Fund Inspector, dated 20th November, 1975. in the Salary Register, bearing the fact that the firm was employing 17 employees only was produced to contend that the petitioner firm was employing less than 20 employees but his contention appears to have been over-ruled as on 20th April, 1977, the petitioner received a notice dated 20th April, 1977 calling upon him to deposit contributions towards Employees Provident Fund, Employees Pension Fund, Administrative charges, Deposit Linked Insurance Fund for the month of October, 1976 to February 1977 and to submit monthly returns. It is submitted that the petitioner again approached respondent No. 1 but he insisted on the compliance of the notice The petitioner firm thereafter received a notice dated 4th May, 1977 from the Collector (Recovery), respondent No. 2, under Sec. 220 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to deposit Rs. 20,563/- on account of Provident Fund etc from November 1974 to September, 1976. The petitioner again received a summons dated 18th August, 1977 under Sec. 7 A of the PF Act. After making enquiries respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 6944/- for the months of October 1976 to May 1977 as Employer and Employees, Share of Contribution to the Fund and Rs. 206/- as administrative charges by his order dated 3rd September, 1977.

(3.) IN the instant case, though summons dated 8th Dec. 1976 was issued to appear for an enquiry under Sec. 7a, but there is no order of coverage or determination of the amount. There is no mention of such an order in the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and further, even the alleged order has not been filed as yet. Respondent No. 1 in the reply to the writ petition has admitted that the order dated 3rd September, 1977 was the final order for determination and was duly communicated to the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since the recovery order (Annx. 4) was passed without an order of determination under Sec. 7a of the PF Act, consequently, such an order cannot stand and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed.