JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 6-2-2001, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai under the section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The challenge is on two grounds, namely, that the partner working in the firm cannot be construed as the employee of the firm, and secondly, that the authority erred in misconstruing the amended provision regarding the infancy period in as much as though the firm of the petitioners having been established prior to amendment to the section 16(1)(d) of the said Act, whereby the infancy period was of three years, the petitioners could not have been denied the exemption from the provisions of the said Act for a period of three years from the date of its inception merely because during the subsistence of the said period of three years the section 16(1)(d) of the said Act was amended, deleting the availability of the infancy period. Reliance is placed, in support of the first ground of challenge in the matter of the (Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document