IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19944 of 2008 Between: M/s.Syamala Paradise(Eswara Hostels Pvt Ltd) Rep.by its Managing Director Mrs T.Syarnala W/o. Mr Rajeswarao, Flat No.310 Rishas Towers Sarada Street Dabagardens,Visakhapatnam-20 ..... PETITIONER AND Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Office of Regional Fund Commissioner Sub Regional Office VUDA Lay Out NAD Post Marripalem Visakhapatnam- 530009 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction or a writ one in thenature Mandamus(i) declaring (i) proceedings coverage Intimation No.AP/5505435 dt 01-06-2007 under Which petitioner's Establishment is alleged to have been by the provisions of employees provident fund Miscellaneous provisions act 1952 w.e.f 01-10-2002 (ii) proceedings bearing No.AP/VP/55054/AG-IV(4)/2008/434 dt 17- 07-2008 to comply with Employees provident Fund scheme without passing appropriate orders in petitons ﬁled by the petitioner (I) for Reopening of the case enabling the petitioner to submit its defence(ii) Seeking stay of all further proceedings on the ﬁle of the respondent as illegal arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside proceedings coverage intimation No.AP/55054535 dt 01-06- 2007 and proceedings bearing No.AP/VP/55054/AG- IV(4)/2008/434 dt 17-7-2008 to comply with employees provident Fund Scheme of the respondent forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19944 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/s Syamala Paradise (Eswara Hotels Pvt Ltd.,) represented by its Managing Director Mrs. T. Syamala assailing the Coverage Intimation No. AP/V.P./55054/535, dated 1-6-2007 under which the petitioner’s establishment has been brought under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 w.e.f. 1-10-2002. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is represented by its Managing Director. One Jagapati Rao was appointed as Manager to look after the aﬀairs of the hotel. According to the petitioner, the said Jagapati Rao instigated the employees working in the hotel and committed theft of hotel records. The respondent authority inspected the hotel of the petitioner and issued proceedings Coverage Intimation No. AP/V.P./55054/535, dated 1-6-2007 wherein it is stated that the petitioner establishment has been brought under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner submitted petition to the respondent contending that the petitioner hotel does not come within the purview of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner requested the respondent authority to furnish certain copies of documents. There being no response to the request of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioner I deem it appropriate to refer para 7 of the writ affidavit and it reads as here under:- “The petitioner also contending that the respondent proceeding further without supplying the copies of (i) the copies of the Inspection report of Endorsement Oﬃcer, (ii) Scroll ( rough cash book) maintained by Ganapathirao for the dates 10-10-2006, 22- 12-2006, 24-12-2006 and 3-1-2007 and stolen by the said Ganapathirao (iii) Copy of the report obtained from District Labour Oﬃcer by it (iv) Records prepared and stolen by Ganapathirao and produced to it (v) The copies of supporting evidences before it for covering the petitioner’s hotel under the provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952. However, the respondent did not supply any of the documents as requested. On 23-6-2008, the petitioner ﬁled two separate petitions before the respondent for (i) reopening the case under Proceedings No. 5054, dated 1-6- 2007 (ii) for stay of all further proceedings. The two petitions are still pending and no orders on those petitions have been passed. However, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner it has submitted all relevant documents sought for by the respondent in pursuance letter dated 17-7-2008 issued to the petitioner. The respondent for about one year did not pass any order on the coverage ﬁle but without referring to the petitions ﬁled by the petitioner, the respondent issued order dated 17-7-2008 directing the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the scheme formulated under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Questioning the same and the proceedings dated 1-6-2007, the present writ petition is filed for the following among other”. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R.N. Reddy, learned standing counsel of Employees Provident Fund Organization received notice on behalf of the respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is handicapped in submitting the explanation to the Coverage Note since Manager of the petitioner hotel committed theft of material documents. A further submission has been made that the petitioner submitted counter wherein a request has been made to the respondent to furnish the following documents. 1. Proof to cover our organization for E.P.F. from 1-10- 2002. 2. Copy of the District Labour Oﬃcer Report called on by your good selves, 3. Original copies of the scroll Book, (Rough Cash Book) 4. Original Attendance sheets from 1-1-2007 to 31-3- 2007, 5. Original Note Book containing amounts to verify the correctness and give our ﬁndings on that. Till that time we request you not to pass any order on this matter. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the coverage note impugned in the writ petition issued under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the coverage note, he has to approach the Tribunal as provided under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 8. Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads as hereunder. 7-I:- Appeals to Tribunal: 1) Any person aggrieved by a notiﬁcation issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3) or, sub-section (4) of Section 1 or Section 3, or sub-section (1) of Section 7A or Section 7B ( except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof) or Section 7C, or Section 14B may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be ﬁled in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” 9. The Coverage Intimation has been issued under sub- section (4) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The remedy available to the petitioner is by way of an appeal to the Tribunal as provided under Section 7-I of the Act. 10. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available under Section 7-I of the Act, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 17th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19944 OF 2008 17th September, 2008.