wp1506.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.1506/2011 M/s Bharat Jyoti Domestic Appliances -vs- The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr.R.S.Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondents. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 09/08/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18/02/2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The applicability of the said Act to the petitioner Company has been confirmed by the order dated 14/09/2009 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The said order has its basis in the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer. It is required to be noted that in the said proceedings initiated under Section 7A of the said Act, the proprietor of the petitioner Company – Nandram Raipure was requested to provide the details of the 24 workers working as on 14/01/1993. The wp1506.11.odt 2/3 employer was asked to produce the audited copies of the Profit and Loss, Balance-sheet from the year 1994-95 to 2007-08, the Trial Balance for 2008-09 and the salary/wages register as on the date of the enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the employer did not produce any record for the period in question and therefore the Authority was perforce required to observe that the employer was playing delaying tactics. It is further to be noted that the deposition of the Enforcement Officer pursuant to the said visit made by him was also forwarded to the employer for offering his comments. The said report was accepted by the employer as having been received by him on 24/08/2009, however, most significantly the employer did not turn up to present his view on the Enforcement Officer’s report. The Authority in the said circumstances corroborated the material that was collected by the Enforcement Officer by relying upon the ESIC records, which inter alia disclosed that the petitioner had engaged 23 employees on 14/01/1993. The said fact was required to be accepted in view of the fact that the employer had failed to produce the material as demanded by the Authorities. The 7A proceedings therefore culminated in the order dated 14/09/2009 being passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner holding that the petitioner is liable for an amount of Rs.6,61,648/-, the break up of which is given in the table appearing in the order. The petitioner took exception to the said order 14/09/2009 passed under Section 7A by filing an Appeal before wp1506.11.odt 3/3 the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which Appeal as indicated above came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18th February, 2011. The Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the findings recorded in the enquiry under Section 7A, in so far as the contention of the petitioner that a proper opportunity was not given to it, is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded that a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the case of the Authorities, but the petitioner failed to avail of the same. Having perused the order passed under Section 7A as well as the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 18/02/2011, in my view, considering the powers that are vested in the Authorities, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Authorities on the basis of the corroboration by the ESIC records. It is required to be borne in mind that the Provident Fund Act is ultimately a beneficial piece of legislation and the benefits ultimately go to the workers. In my view, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The Authorities are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court pursuant to the ad interim order passed in the above petition. JUDGE KHUNTE