N.P. CONSTRUCTION Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India), Regional Office, Ranchi, Jharkhand (respondent No.2) under Sec. 7C of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act, 1952') directing the petitioner to pay the PF liability within a period of 15 days on the ground that the overtime allowance was not considered earlier while determining the same.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that a proceeding was initiated under Sec. 7A of the Act, 1952 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Ranchi (respondent No.3) and vide order dated 28.05.2009, the petitioner-organization was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3118 over and above an amount of Rs. 63,73,319 deposited by the petitioner as dues and further Rs. 64,382 as interest under Sec. 7Q of the Act, 1952. The petitioner deposited Rs. 67,500 on 10.07.2009 through demand draft. Subsequently, a vigilance inquiry was held and in pursuance of submission of the report, a notice dated 04.07.2011 under Sec. 7C(a) of the Act, 1952 was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner-firm to appear on 02.08.2011 and adduce evidence/statement as well as to produce all relevant records for conducting an enquiry and determination of the escaped amount. The petitioner appeared on 02.08.2011 and produced all the documents, however, on 22.11.2017, a commission was ordered to be constituted to verify the documents and to submit a detailed report. The said commission visited the petitioner-firm on 19.12.2017 and submitted its report on 21.02.2018 observing that overtime allowances have not been added while making computation of wages which needs to be added, moreover, the payment shown to have been made to several employees are less than the minimum wages. In the meantime, on 31.01.2018, the petitioner-firm requested for summoning 3 officers of the department for cross-examination who were engaged in preparation of the vigilance report, which was denied by the respondent No. 2. However, the finding was given by the respondent No.2 on the basis of the said vigilance report itself.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that though it repeatedly requested the respondent No.2 for providing all necessary documents and to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to explain the allegation, yet the same was not considered and vide the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, the respondent No. 2 held as under:-