The authority must consider jurisdictional issues and provide specific findings on employee count and applicability of the Act when assessing provident fund dues.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2010 passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,42,104.00 and also Challenging the appellate order dated 17.09.2015, passed in ATA No. 100(18)2011, by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Arguments of the petitioner

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner and a report was prepared. The report has been placed on record by the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.09.2024. The report is dated 15.02.1999 as Annexure-A. She submits that in the said report it has been mentioned that 21 employees were found working, However, there is no mention that the list of employees was also prepared and the list of employees was a part of the report. She submits that the first page of the report shows the receiving of the petitioner but at the same time a list of employees has been annexed to the report said to be prepared on the same day but the list of the employees does not show any receiving by the petitioner. She has submitted that neither the report mentioned about the list of employees as enclosure nor the document of list of employees shows any receiving of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that on the face of the list of employees, only the first name of the persons has been mentioned without their parentage and their address and the identity of such persons is itself incomplete. The learned counsel has submitted that an ex-parte order under Section 7-A was passed on 30.07.2004/04.08.2004 (Annexure-5) wherein the dues of Employees Provident Fund was calculated for the period from 02/1999 to 07/2003.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said ex-parte order was challenged before this Court in W.P. (L) No. 2160 of 2007 and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition was disposed of enabling the petitioner to either file review or an appeal under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. She submits that consequently a review application was filed in which it was categorically disputed that the petitioner had ever employed more than nine employees and as such employment was given per the factory license given to the petitioner in which the petitioner was entitled to employee up to 9 persons. Further it was also mentioned in the review petition that the factory of the petitioner is not covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act as the manufacturing of aluminum utensils was not mentioned in the schedule to the Act. She has further submitted that the petitioner had also produced documents to show that the factory license was surrendered and the factory was permanently closed w.e.f. March, 1999 and therefore otherwise also any liability beyond March 1999 could not have been imposed. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid points raised in the review petition were not considered in accordance with law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fresh order was passed on 03.11.2010 wherein the claim of the petitioner that the establishment was closed since March 1999 and intimation in F-29 given to the office of Factory Inspector regarding closure of the factory was disbelieved on the ground that the Enforcement Officer had stated that he had visited the office of Factory Inspector but could not trace the copy of F-29 in that office and the license was renewed up to 05.01.2002 and that the establishment was running up to 05.01.2002. She submits that the authority under the provisions of Emplo