The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident v. M/S Rozy Sweets And Chaat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2245 of 2013 =========================================================== The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road No. 6, P.S. Sachiwalaya, Distt - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

M/S Rozy Sweets & Cheat, through its Proprietor, Sri Amanpreet Singh Gandhi S/O not known Nala Road, Patna .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. P. Srivastava, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-10-2017 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

The petitioner, who was respondent before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has filed the present writ petition before this Court for quashing the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Tribunal whereby the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the respondent-petitioner under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') has been allowed by the Tribunal and

Patna High Court CWJC No.2245 of 2013 dt.30-10-2017 2/2 the order passed under Section 7A of the Act by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna dated 26.11.2013 has been set aside.

3.

It would be manifest from the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal that the employer had filed attendance register, which shows that it had engaged five employees only. However, the authority under the Act was of the view that apart from five permanent employees, the employer had also engaged 15 casual employees and, thus, the authority under Section 7A of the Act directed the respondent employer to deposit employee provident fund due. The Tribunal after having gone through the record has categorically held that there is no material on record to hold that the staff strength of the employer/establishment was 20 or more and the Act is applicable to it.

4.

Having seen the finding on fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal, I see no illegality in the order. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.11.2017 Transmission Date NA