SHRIRAM RAYONS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2019 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine.

(2.) The appellant approached the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 06.03.2019 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (constituted as the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'). The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by the aforesaid order relying on the report submitted by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Kota, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act of 1952'), assessed the amount of Rs.1,56,28,037/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakh Twenty Eight Thousands and Thirty Seven only) as EPF and allied dues on the wages/salary paid in the name of stipend from the year 1997 to June, 2011. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant prayed for stay of operation of order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the respondent under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 and also for waiver of the amount of pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952. The Appellate Tribunal by the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2019 held that the requirement of 75% of the amount determined under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 should be relaxed to a certain extent and accordingly reduced the amount of pre-deposit to only 30% of the amount determined. Considering however that the bank account had been attached even before expiry of the limitation for filing appeal, the Tribunal directed the respondent to release the attached bank account of the appellant and appellant was directed to deposit 30% of the amount so determined vide order dated 15.01.2019. Learned Single Judge held that in the factual matrix of the case, prima facie, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal granting relaxation to the extent of 30% deposit of the amount determined under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, cannot be faulted.

(3.) Mr. Shivangshu Naval, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the order passed by the Commissioner suffers from numerous illegalities inasmuch as the order does not reflect application of mind. It has not dealt with the objection of the appellant that the provident fund was not payable in the case of trainees who were allowed to work with the appellant for a maximum period of three years and were only paid the stipend. There was no relationship of employer and employee between them. The order in substance, according to him, has been passed without jurisdiction. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has cited certain judgments on the question of coverage of the appellant for the period from 1997 to June 2011, with reference to Section 7-A of the Act of 1952. He has also submitted that show cause notice for the first time was issued to the appellant in the year 2011 to demand EPF, though EPF was demanded from 1997.