ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition (L) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging legality and validity of the order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 5 (Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal) affirming the order dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondents No. 2 & 3 and also the order dated 17.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 5 by which the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that on 26.10.1991, the Provident Fund Inspector, Madhya Pradesh has filed 80 criminal complaint (Annexure P/4) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur complaining for prosecution of petitioner company for commission of offences under Paragraph 76 (d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 14 (1), 14(1A), 14(2), 14A & 14AA of the Act, 1952 as they defaulted in making payment of provident fund dues for the period from July, 1986 to January, 1991, as such, liable to be punished under Section 14(1) & 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act, 1952”). The petitioner has entered appearance before the Labour Court, wherein, they have requested the Judicial Magistrate First Class that they may be allowed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- per month towards arrears of payment of provident fund dues. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 25.03.1996 (Annexure P/5) fixed the installment of Rs. 40,000/- per month and closed the case imposing Rs. 200/- as fine in each case filed by the Provident Fund Inspector.

3. Against that order, the Provident Fund Inspector/Enforcement Officer has filed Criminal Revision No. 741/1996 before High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has given undertaking before High Court of Madhya Pradesh to deposit an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month in place of Rs. 40,000/- per month being deposited for the present, towards the arrears of provident fund, recoverable from the above Company, agreed initial amount whereof was Rs. 27,84,878.15 only. It has been further undertaken to make payment/at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the month of October, 1998 and the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class was modified to the above extent.

4. On 12.02.2002, respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner (Annexure P/10) with regard to compliance of order under the Act, 1952, wherein it has been mentioned as under:-

“As you are award that your company had committed defaults in payment of contribution & other dues under the said Act, 1952. The amount of contribution & other charges on your company is deposited by your company, later on in a number of installments. Now with a view to reconcile the dues a deposits position under the Act, 1952, you are requested to depute a responsible officer of your company alongwith following information/documents to this office on any working day-

1. Statement of year wise dues payable by your company for the period 1984-1985 & onwards.

2. Statement of remittances with details of cheques/ D.D. Nos., date and amount.

Please note that aforesaid exercise is necessary for making full & final payment to your employees, an early response is desired.”

5. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and submitted its reply dated 20.02.2002 (Annexure P/11) wherein the petitioner denied and disputed the legality, validity and propriety of the letter dated 12.02.2002 issued by respondent No. 2 and has submitted that the letter was wrongly addressed to Shri B.K. Nopany, who is not the Managing Director of the company for the last more than 20 years. He is not even the Director of the company and requested to correspond with them only and not to issue any letter in his name and reiterate the fact