 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3536/2008 M/s. Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. Pusad ..vs.. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M. R. Pillai, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 6 th MARCH, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Sugar Factory and is subject to the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It appears that respondent no. 2-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, issued an order on 11.04.2008 directing the petitioner to produce complete record for the purposes of assessment of the amount required to be deposited under the the Provident Fund Act and also to appear before the Authority on 22.04.2008. It appears that on request, the date was extended to 12.05.2008. However, in the meanwhile, respondent no.3, who is Enforcement Officer issued a letter dated 02.05.2008 calling upon the petitioner to deposit all  the records within three days failing which legal action would be initiated against the employer. Thereafter, respondent no.2 issued letter dated 03.07.2008 pointing out that the employer had committed offence under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-. The order also reveals that the petitioner was directed to remit the fine and to submit the record on 10.07.2008 without fail, else further coercive action would be taken. According to the petitioner, the order dated 03.07.2008 was received on 15.07.2008 and, therefore, it could not be complied with. When they approached respondent no. 2 on 15.07.2008, they came to know that respondent no. 2 had already moved the Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action against the Managing Director of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash and set aside order dated 03.07.2008 and to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action. 3. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the petitioner has been defying the directions given by respondents for production of records, which is necessary to assess the liability of the petitioner to deposit the amount under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner came to this Court only  after coercive action was actually initiated. Even though the period of about 8 months has elapsed after that still the record is not produced by the petitioner before the respondents. That itself indicates that the Management of the petitioner has no respect for the law and it does not want to obey the lawful directions given by the respondents. 4. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the present petition and on that ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement that the petitioner shall produce all the relevant records before respondent no. 2 on or before 12.03.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents makes statement that if the record is produced as per the statement and if the petitioner also cooperates in the enquiry under Section 7 (a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. Statements made by both the learned counsel are accepted. 5. In view of above statement, the petitioner is allowed to produce the record before respondent no. 2 on or before 12.03.2009 and are further directed to cooperate with the respondents in the enquiry under Section 7a of the Act. If  the record is produced as per the above directions, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. 6. With these directions, present petition stands dismissed. JUDGE kahale