JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition assailing the order dated 09/08/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed in appeal No. ATA No. 62(8)/2003 passed by the learned Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and against the Interim order dated 17/04/2002 (Annexure P/3) by which the respondent No.2 has assessed the P.F. dues of Employees working in the Cooperative Society working with the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15,30,766/- under Section 7A of the E.P.F Act, 1952 (for short, the Act ‘1952’)

2. Brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner is a Government undertaking and is involved in power manufacturing sector. The respondent initiated proceeding under section 7 A of the Act, 1952 vide notice dated 11/11/1991 issued by the Regional Provident Commissioner, Indore. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Indore vide its order dated 11/04/1997 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of relaxation from applicability of Act, 1952. Therefore, it is directed petitioner to comply with the provisions of Act, 1952, thereafter, the proceeding were transferred to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur.

3. The proceedings under section 7(a) of Act, 1952 was initiated by the Assistant Provident Commissioner, Raipur for assessment of P.F. dues of the Members of the Cooperative Society who are land displaced persons. The petitioner submitted his reply contending no employer employee relation exists between the society and its member as the members themselves are the workers and they share the profit earned by the societies among themselves. It has also been contended that the societies are registered under the M.P. Cooperative Act, 1960 which is an independent legal entity and juristic person. Therefore, the provisions of E.P.F Act are not applicable. The learned Assistant Provident Commissioner while examining the provisions of Act, 1952 particularly the definition of “Employee” as define under the Act has held that members of the cooperative society are employee as per the provisions of Act, 1952, thus the Act, 1952 is applicable. Thereafter, he has assessed the sues to the tune of Rs.15,30,766/-. These orders are being challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that in the garb of Interim Order dated 23/12/2002 the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner has passed the final order without identifying the beneficiaries, without assessing the actual contribution of employees as such the impugned order is bad in law. He would further submit that against that order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Employee Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which has been rejected mechanically without considering the grounds raised in the appeal. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that a non speaking has been passed. He would further submit that the both the orders may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 would submit that the impugned order passed by the authority as well as order passed by the Tribunal is legal, justify and does not warrant any interference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.

7. On the other hand learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the assessment of due without identification of beneficiaries is illegal and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. He would further submit that before assessing the dues the identifications of the persons, their wages and contribution should be assessed which has not been done and would submit that so far as impugned order passed by Assistant Provident Commissioner with regard to assessment of dues without identification of the beneficiaries is illegal and would pray for quashing of order. He would further submit that the member of the cooperative society will not the employee for the purposed of E.P.F. Act. As such he would pray for quas