W.P. No. 1544/2000 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava W.P. No. 1544/2000 ....PETITIONER: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the RPFC, Sub Regional Office, Behind Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jabalpur (M.P.) Versus ....RESPONDENTS:1. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 7th Floor, 60, Skylark Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 2. M/s Sagar Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., through it's Director, Bhagwan Gunj, Sagar (M.P.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner : Shri J.K. Pillai, Advocate Respondent No.2: Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (07/01/2011) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare by an appropriate writ order or direction that the impugned order dated 19.3.99 is bad, arbitrary and illegal. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 19.3.99. (iii) Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.” W.P. No. 1544/2000 -2- 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that number of employees working under the establishment of respondent No.2 are not certain and specific, therefore, respondent No.1 has remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to re-decide the matter. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.3.1999 (Annexure P-7) this Court finds that the respondent No.1 after considering the each and every aspect of the matter in detail in para 6 has come to a definite conclusion which reads thus: “..... The learned counsel argues that so long as the learned 7A authority does not give a definite finding that on any specific day all these 21 persons were employed he cannot cover the establishment under the Act. I find this contention reasonable and think that it is necessary for the 7A authority to see if the employees named in the list filed by the EO worked on a single day together or not. This point, I do not find, has been answered by the 7A authority. I, therefore, much reluctantly have to remand back the case for re-decision on this point.” 3. Looking to the order passed by respondent No.1, I do not find that it is arbitrary or contrary to law and hence I decline to interfere in the order of remand passed by respondent No.1. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. Before parting with the order, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to take part in the proceedings and produce all the relevant records to substantiate the list of the employees. Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Regional Commissioner, Sagar on 7th March, 2011. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE S/