The subsequent settlement reached under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act was not sufficient to set aside the order of remand made by the PF Tribunal, and the PF Department had the jurisdiction to hear the parties afresh.

1. The writ petition was filed seeking to challenge the proceedings dated 22.12.2000 pursuant to the notice dated 29.04.1998 on the file of the first respondent/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Vellore and seeks for a direction to forbear from conducting any enquiry against the petitioner.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.02.2001. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of injunction against the first respondent from further proceeding with the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act.

3. It was the contention of the petitioner that the authority has no power to reopen any proceedings which were already concluded. Subsequently, the injunction was made absolute on 29.08.2003 on the ground that the respondent PF Department has not filed any reply to the allegations made by the petitioner Management.

4. It was thereafter on 06.08.2001, a counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent. When the matter was taken up, a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act dated 19.11.2009 reached between the Contractors M/s.K.Anandaraj and P.Anbazhagan with the EID Parry Coromandel Fertilisers Contract Employees Union was produced. In that the trade union and their immediate contractors have agreed in paragraph 2 as follows:-

"2. Workmen hereby agree and declare that the employer is providing them wages well above the minimum rates of wages under the statue and also providing them various statutory and other benefits like Bonus, Leave with wages, Provident Fund, ESI, Gratuity etc., strictly in accordance with law and they have no grievances whatsoever either in the past or currently in this regard."

5. Therefore, Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co submitted that in the light of the workers agreeing to accept the contractors as employer for all purposes any proceedings with reference to the payment of PF cannot be mulct on the petitioner Management. They also submitted that notice of enquiry under Section 7A was issued to the second respondent Trade Union on the basis of the complaint given by them. Since the second respondent Trade Union could not substantiate their original claim that they were employees of the principal employer, the said complaint was closed. As against the said order dated 21.01.1998 no appeal was filed. On 29.04.1998, the first respondent without authority reopened the enquiry under Section 7A and by an order dated 26.11.1998 he directed the petitioner company to pay contribution in respect of contract workmen for the period from 04/90 to 08/98.

6. The erstwhile Management filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal being ATA 13 (9)/99. The Tribunal by an order dated 29.07.1999 set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter to the first respondent to issue summons even to the Contractor and to decide the legality of the proceedings. The petitioner Management raised a preliminary objection before the first respondent regarding their jurisdiction. By the impugned proceedings dated 27.12.2000, the first respondent reopened the enquiry and issued notice to the Contractor. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was claimed that the proceedings initiated by them was valid and they have power to reopen the earlier proceedings. In paragraph 10, it was averred as follows:-

"...Hence the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, by his letter dated 11.2.1998 intimated his decision to drop the enquiry proposed to be conducted. However, when the Contractors Union satisfied the Enquiry Authority with sufficient proof and reasons that they did not receive the notice intimating the date of hearing on time, the authority decided to reconsider the case in the light of the material evidences promised to be submitted by the Contractors Union...."

8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Trade Union stated that they are satisfied if they are