THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17562 OF 2011 DATED: 20.07.2011 Between M/s. SKS Microfinance Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Manager Sri M.R.M. Murali … Petitioner And 1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17562 OF 2011 ORDER : The petitioner company, which is engaged in the business of micro finance, claims to have had vast network in the country. The petitioner is admittedly covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the EPF Act’) and the Schemes framed thereunder and it has been allotted a Code number. It is stated that the petitioner company has been paying the EPF contributions regularly on the basis of the basic wages as defined under EPF Act and as per the contract of appointment between the petitioner and its employees and there were no complaints of any nature against the petitioner company regarding compliance of the EPF provisions. While so, the 1st respondent issued summons No.AP/RO/HYD/52172/C-1/ T-1/2011, dated 30.3.2011 stating that as per the information laid before the 1st respondent, he had reason to believe, on the basis of inspection conducted by an Enforcement Officer in respect of the petitioner establishment, that dues for the period 4/2009 to 9/2010 were not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act as applicable to the petitioner establishment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned summons including the proceedings under Section 7-A of the EPF Act were arbitrary and illegal. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while submitting that the 1st respondent while proceeding under Section 7-A of the EPF Act shall only determine the EPF dues in accordance with EPF Act and the Scheme made thereunder, vehemently contended that the 1st respondent has no power or authority to decide the liability of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is also contended that as per the provisions of the EPF Act the petitioner is liable to pay statutory PF only on the basic wages as defined under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act and therefore it is not open to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings for payment of EPF contributions on minimum rate of wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. I have also heard Sri R.N. Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the 1st respondent is the competent authority to take up the enquiry under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. Admittedly what is challenged in this writ petition is only a notice issued by the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry in connection with such an enquiry under Section 7- A of the EPF Act. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the 1st respondent, including that the enquiry initiated is beyond the scope of the EPF Act. In case the objections are not accepted by the 1st respondent, then a cause may arise to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Since no decision contrary to law has been taken as of today, the writ petition in my considered opinion, is premature. However, having regard to the objection raised by the petitioner that the enquiry itself is beyond the scope of the EPF Act, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s objection as a preliminary issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law before proceeding further. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.07.2011 gbs