USHA MARTIN LTD. Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority issued under the Provision of Section 8(A) of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1952).

(2.) The sole ground taken by the petitioner in assailing the proceeding initiated by the respondent-authority under the provision of Section 8(F) of the Act, 1952 which speaks about the provision pertaining to recovery of due, hence the same can only be asserted to if the determination of due would be made by the Provident Fund Authority in exercise of the power conferred under the provision of Section 7(A) of the Act, 1952, but having done so, the issuance of the order under Section 8(F) will be said to be not proper and not in consonance with the statutory provision as contained under the Act, 1952. It has been submitted that the recovery part can only be done if the dues will be determined but here in the instant case the due have not been determined, since no proceeding has been initiated in the provision of Section 7(A) of the Act, 1952 either against the petitioner or the respondent No.5.

(3.) Ms. Banani Verma learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Authority in all fairness has submitted that there is no determination of dues having been passed by the Provident Fund Authority in exercise of power under Section 7(A) of the Act, 1952.