REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SHIVDEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dt. 15.10.1998 submits that in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Basant Lal Jain v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors., the respondent was required to submit accounts in terms of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, dt. 29.04.1998 was justified and legal and the same could not have been set aside in appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel further submits that vide notification dt. 07.03.1962, the Government of India had notified every trading and commercial establishment employing 20 or more persons each and engaged in the purchase, sell or storage of any goods to come within the ambit of Act of 1952. Accordingly, the respondent-Shivdeep Industries Limited which was engaged in manufacturing Bikaneri Papad and Bhujia were liable to be covered under the schedule as trading and commercial establishment and was therefore required to produce books of accounts for the notice period.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed in case of Sri Ram Papad Bhandar, Bikaner wherein a similar view was taken by it. It is submitted that the said decision taken by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the petitioner and a different view therefore could not have been taken by the Tribunal. The respondents would not also be allowed to take two different stands relating to similarly placed persons. This Court while issuing notices had observed that the respondents establishment had accepted to be under the coverage of the Act and the provident fund was being deposited by the respondents. The effect and operation of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was therefore stayed and the interim order is continuing.