The statutory authority has the power to call for relevant documents and summon witnesses before making a determination under the EPF Act.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner School seeks setting aside of the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and the order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (for short "Commissioner"), whereby the petitioner Establishment was directed to make compliance under all the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the EPF Act"), w.e.f. 01.02.2005, subject to the right of the Department to shift back the date of coverage if subsequently found that the Act is applicable to the Establishment from previous date. Mr. Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Establishment submits that the petitioner Establishment had filed reply to the notice issued under Section 7-A of the EPF Act by the Commissioner, whereby stated that Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, Principal of the School, appeared before the Commissioner on 27.07.2005 and stated that the Enforcement Officer, who inspected the School on 16.02.2005, had submitted the Coverage Performa alleged to have been signed by Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, presenting herself as Principal of the School, bears names of 23 employees. In fact, there were only 15 teachers and 3 staff members in the School. It is further stated that the clerical and managerial work of the School was being done by S. Harjinder Singh and Shri Gurpreet Singh respectively, being Founder Members of the petitioner Establishment. Moreover, as per the Society Rules, no amount as salary has been given to them.

2. Moreover, there was no proof either before the Commissioner or the Appellate Authority to establish that there were 20 or more employees employed with the petitioner Establishment and getting the salaries. Despite, both the Authorities mentioned above, held that the provisions of EPF Act are applicable on the petitioner Establishment.

3. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel further submits that both the Authorities had power to summon any record in the controversy, however, failed to do so and has relied upon the Coverage Performa filed by the Enforcement Officer and accordingly passed the orders.

4. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 68, wherein the Apex Court held as under:

"7. The question, in our opinion, is not whether one has failed to produce evidence. The question is whether the Commissioner who is the statutory authority has exercised powers vested in him to collect the relevant evidence before determining the amount payable under the said Act.

8. It is of importance to remember that the Commissioner while conducting an inquiry under Section 7A has the same powers as are vested in a Court under the CPC for trying a suit. The section reads as follows:

"Section 7(A) Determination of Moneys due from Employer - (1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Commissioner or any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act (the scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme) as the case may be and for this purpose may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary.

(2) The Officer conducting the inquiry under Sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the CPC, 1908, for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:

(a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.

and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. It will be seen from the above provision