CWP No.9381 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9381 of 2010 Date of decision:06.07.2011 M/s Dhillon Rice Mills, Muktsar Road, Sadiq (Closed since 1984- 85) through Sh.Surjit Singh Dhillon, Erstwhile partner, Erstwhile Partner of M/s Dhillon Rice Mills, Muktsar Road, Sadiq, District Faridkot and another ..... Petitioners VERSUS The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub regional Officer, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Near TV Tower, Bathinda ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Manisha Dayal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Neetu Prashar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9381, 9382 and 9722 of 2010 as they involve adjudication of common questions of law and fact. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the order dated 18.09.1990, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Camp at Ludhiana and the order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. CWP No.9381 of 2010 -2- Counsel for the petitioners confines his plea to an argument that notices issued by the respondents were not received by the petitioners or any or its partners and therefore, interest of justice would require that the petitioners are afforded an opportunity to appear before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to establish that they are not liable. It is further argued that as the firm was not granted a custom milling licence after 31.03.1985, it closed its business, the electricity connection was disconnected and its employees ceased to work with the firm. It is prayed that the ex-parte proceedings and orders may be set aside and the petitioners may be afforded an opportunity to establish their defence. Counsel for respondent however, submits that notices were issued to the petitioners but as they did not come forward to contest their liability or to putforth any defence, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had no option but to pass an order on the basis of the existing record. It is further argued that as the petitioners have failed to contest the show cause notices, they have no right to pray for grant of an opportunity to prove that the establishment did not exist beyond the year 1985. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the documents appended with the petition and the impugned orders. The petitioners rely upon certificates Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, issued by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Faridkot, the Secretary, Market Committee, Faridkot and the Assistant Executive Engineer, CWP No.9381 of 2010 -3- S/A/SUB/Division, PSEB, Faridkot, in support of their argument that the petitioners have not transacted any business after 01.04.1984. The petitioners assert that as the firm closed its business, the electricity connection was disconnected and employees left their employment. The petitioners submission appears to be prima facie correct but should have been raised in response to the show cause notices issued to them. It appears that in view of the closure of the business, the notices were not served or were not served in accordance with law. As the defence set up by the petitioners, appears to be prima facie tenable, the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to establish their defence before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed, the proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and orders dated 18.09.1990 and 12.04.2010, are set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda, Sub Regional Office, Urban Estate Phase-1, Near TV Tower, Bathinda on 16.08.2011 to putforth their defence, as pleaded in the petition. The petitioners case shall be decided within one month. It is made clear to the petitioners that in case they are held liable to pay any amount towards provident fund, the amount so assessed shall be deposited within a month. As the petitioners have been remiss in their obligation to set up their defence before respondent, the cost of the petitions shall be CWP No.9381 of 2010 -4- paid by the petitioners. Costs are quantified as Rs.2,000/- for each case. 06.07.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.9381 of 2010 -5-