JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

Tata Refractories Employees Co-operative Society Limited situated at Belpahar in the district of Jharsuguda, has filed this application challenging order dated 30.10.2001 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C), Sub-Regional Office, Rourkela -opposite party no.1 under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “EPF & MP Act, 1952”) directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,83,951/- as provident fund dues towards (i) the provident fund contribution, (ii) the family pension contribution/EPS’ 95 contribution, (iii) the administrative charges, (iv) the employees deposit linked insurance contribution, (v) the employees deposit linked insurance administrative charges for the period from 11/97 to 9/2001, and a sum of Rs.83,198/-towards interest for the period up to 17.10.2001 @ 12% per annum under Section 7-Q of the Act.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that Tata Refractories Employees Co-operative Society Limited is a society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. The petitioner society is engaged in sale and purchase of groceries, stationery, clothes, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), etc. The employees of M/s. Tata Refractories are the customers of the petitioner society. The petitioner society is registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1960, and has engaged 21 persons to look after its day to day business. On 24.07.2001, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner-opposite party no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner society stating that the petitioner society is covered under the purview of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and is directed to deposit the provident fund dues. In response thereto, the petitioner society replied on 18.08.2001 stating inter alia that in view of the provisions contained under Section 16(1) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, a co-operative society is not covered under the said Act, if it is employing less than fifty persons and is running without the aid of power. It was further stated that the petitioner society, having registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and engaged 21 persons (which is less than 50 persons) and not operated any power driven equipment, is exempted from the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. On receipt of the same, opposite party no.1 issued summons on 31.08.2001 to the Secretary of the petitioner society under Section 7-A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 requiring to appear in person or through an authorized representative on 24.09.2001 to adduce evidence and to produce the documents for conducting enquiry and determining the amount due from 11/97 onwards. In compliance of the same, the Secretary of the petitioner society appeared before opposite party no.1 on 24.09.2001, but could not be examined and the matter was adjourned to 04.10.2001. On that date, the matter was again adjourned to 17.10.2001, when the Secretary appeared before opposite party no.1 and reiterated the stands, as were taken in the reply. But opposite party no.1, without appreciating the stands taken by the petitioner and examining the fact in proper perspective, passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2001, hence this application.

3. Mr. V. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the provisions contained under Section 16(1)(a) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the petitioner society does not come within of purview of the said Act and, as such, opposite party no.1 has no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned, consequentially seeks for quashing of the same. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Cuttack Development Authority v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2009 (Supp.II) OLR-447 and Orissa State Cooperative Union Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2012 (135) FLR 686.

4. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, w