IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the principles regarding the clubbing of different establishments for the purpose of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner who is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants-M/s. Kumar and Biju Associates, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P38 order issued by the 1st respondent under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as also Ext.P40 order issued by the 5th respondent Tribunal rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order.

2.1 The short facts, necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is as under: The petitioner claims that there were only three employees working in the firm. However, by Ext.P2 notice dated 01.01.2007, the 1st respondent herein applied the provisions of the Act as regards 28 employees said to be working with the firm. Later, adjudication was carried out under Section 7A of the Act. An ex parte order at Ext.P6 was issued by the 1st respondent herein dated 10.04.2007 holding that the petitioner is to satisfy Rs.4,95,819.75/- under Section 7A of the Act. The above proceedings were finalised on the basis of the report dated 29.12.2006 of the Enforcement Officer to the effect that at the time of their visit to the premises of the petitioner, there was an attendance register containing the names of 41 employees of which two were partners and 11 were students. The petitioner took up a stand that the 41 employees, whose names figured in the attendance register, were the employees of seven different firms working in the same premises; all of whom signed in the same register since the administrative control of the staff and coordination of the establishments were with the Manager of the firm M/s. Kumar and Biju Associates. However, this contention is not accepted by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 order.

2.2. Insofar as Ext. P6 was an ex parte order, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7B of the Act as evidenced by Ext. P7. It is contended that the above application stood allowed by virtue of the endorsements on the office file dated 31.10.2007, as seen from Ext. P10 copy of the office note sheet obtained from the office of the 1st respondent. On account of the change in the incumbent in the office of the 1st respondent, proceedings under Section 7B are continued resulting in the issue of the Ext. P38 order dated 03.06.2008 rejecting the review petition under Section 7B of the Act. Against the above order, though Ext. P39 appeal is preferred before the 5th respondent tribunal, the same stood rejected by Ext.P40 order dated 20.01.2011.

3. The petitioner, in such circumstances, has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext. P38 order issued by the 1st respondent as also Ext.P40 order issued by the 5th respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order at Ext.P38 cannot be sustained in the light of the endorsements on Ext. P10 Office Note. He also pointed out that the 5th respondent Tribunal has rejected the appeal without issuing notice to respondents 2 to 4 in the appeal (respondents 2 to 4 herein) and therefore, the order at Ext.P40 cannot be sustained. He also contended that the findings in Ext.P38 to the effect that the petitioner had 28 employees - even without going into the controversy of clubbing of the units mentioned in the proceedings is without taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner on the basis of the various documents relied on by him.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, relying on the counter affidavit dated 01.06.2013, contended that the petitioner’s firm, together with the closely integrated units that were seen functioning in the very same premises, had 28 employees, and therefore, the proceedings initiated were perfectly legal. It is also contended that the petitioner is the centre of all the activities in respect of the different est