WP4-2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4 OF 2011 Mr.T. Gangadhar Ramulu Senior Partner of Sagar Bidi Works .. Petitioner Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner .. Respondent Mr.S.K.Chari i/by M.V.Kini & Co for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th January 2011. P.C.: . Rule. Respondent waives service. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioner is the original Appellant in on Appeal being ATA No. 373(9) of 2007 which has been decided by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Bandra(E), Mumbai. 2 The petitioner is a partnership firm and engaged in business of processing and trading of raw beedis. The petitioner has been proceeded against by the authorities under the Employees Provident Funds and WP4-2011 2 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). 3 The petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.28,53,012/- as dues in respect of home workers. 4 The petitioner’s contention through out has been that he has engaged 14 workers at the establishment at Mumbai. The petitioner who is registered under the Act, has been allotted a code number. The petitioner has complied with the provisions of the Act without any default. The authorities have inspected the premises and record at regular intervals. 5 However, the petitioner purchases raw beedis from third parties. They are processed and after labelling, the beedis are packed and sold in open market. The petitioner purchases Beedis from outside, and from persons who are basically self-employed. It is they who manufacture and supply beedis to the petitioner and other traders. Therefore, these persons cannot be said to be the employees of the petitioner. However, the authorities relying upon a report made by the inspector proceeded to issue a show cause notice dated 19th April 2005 and the petitioner’s detailed reply thereto was ignored and order was passed directing him to pay Rs.28,53,012/- towards the Provident Fund dues in WP4-2011 3 respect of the alleged home workers. 6 The petitioner filed the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and pointed out that the identity cards which are produced are got up documents and they could not have been relied upon to foist a claim on the petitioner. The petitioner also relied upon certain communications and Rule 51 of the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Rules, 1979 in support of his contention that the identity cards are not capable of being accepted in evidence. 7 Various contentions have been raised in the memo of appeal and argued but the Appellate Tribunal has without discussing any of the contentions or the materials produced on record held that the petitioner-appellant engaged 500 home workers and to support his conclusion he relied upon identity cards, the genuineness of which has been questioned by the petitioner-appellant. Further, the Presiding Officer relied on certain observations of the Supreme Court and particularly those made in the case of M/s.P.M.Patel & Sons & Ors Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 447 followed in subsequent decisions and confirmed the order. 8 From a perusal of the order passed and particularly para 6 thereof, it is WP4-2011 4 clear that what the Presiding Officer has done is to base his conclusions upon the materials produced by the respondent without in any manner discussing as to how they are capable of being relied upon and particularly without dealing with the argument of the petitioner-appellant that the identity cards are not genuine and in any event they would not be conclusive. As to how the Presiding Officer arrived at figure of 500 home workers is not clear because the contention raised through out was that the case of the petitioner that he has engaged only 14 employees and has been abiding by the provisions of the Act in so far as such employees are concerned. 9 It is for the Tribunal to have dealt with this argument and if it was found to be without any substance that conclusion was necessary. However, there is absolutely no discussion and the order can be said to be cryptic and unreasoned. 10 In these circumstances and when even the respondents have found it difficult to support the conclusion, interest of justice would be served if instead of admitting the petition and keeping it pending, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh and in accordance with law. WP4-2011 5 11 Hence, the following order:- ORDER (a) The order dated 20th October 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The Appeal is restored to its file for being decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. (b) The appeal be decided afresh and without being influenced by any of the observations and conclusions in the impugned order which has been set aside. (c) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (d) Till the appeal is heard and disposed off in terms of this order, the interim order made by the Appellate Tribunal shall continue to operate and parties will abide by the same. 12. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)