The court emphasized the limited scope of examination of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution and upheld the applicability of the EPF Act based on the inspection report and attestation.

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 30.4.1998 and 23.9.1998 vide Annexure P-3 and P-4 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana and Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, the petitioner's company was established in the year 1969. It was a partnership till 5.1.1994. On 6.12.1996, EPF Department officials and Inspectors gave a surprise visit to the petitioner's factory and found that there were 21 employees. The same was recorded and obtained signature and seal on behalf of the Proprietor (Mr. Nitin Guliani s/o petitioner–Proprietor). On 29.7.1997, the petitioner–Company was advised by the respondent–Department, that more than 19 employees are employed in the factory, therefore, the petitioner has to comply the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'EPF Act'). On 31.7.1997, the petitioner denied that he has employed more than 19 employees and stated that he has engaged only 6 employees. Therefore EPF Act is not applicable to the factory owned by the petitioner. Thus he had requested for personal hearing if further action is proposed to be taken by the department. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner on 23.9.1997, EPF Department furnished report of the Inspectors dated 6.12.1996, Coverage Form and list of employees and further reiterated that the petitioner-company is covered by EPF Act and requested for compliance of EPF Act. For non-compliance of EPF Act by the petitioner, the Enforcement Officer reported to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana, to initiate proceedings against the petitioner-company for non-compliance of EPF Act. Similar request was made even on 13.10.1997. Thus notice was given to the petitioner for drawing proceedings under Section 7-A of the EPF Act on 23.1.1998.

3. The petitioner submitted written statement before the respondent–Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana. After hearing the petitioner and perusal of the records, Section 7-A proceedings of the EPF Act have been drawn on 30.4.1998 vide Annexure P-3, holding that EPF Act has been made applicable to the petitioner establishment and petitioner is statutorily bound to report compliance within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.1998, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, while observing certain factual aspects. Thus the petitioner has presented this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his factory is proprietorship from 5.1.1994 onwards as on the date of inspection by the EPF Department on 6.12.1996 he was away from the factory and his son Mr. Nitin Guliani was present. In the absence of Proprietor or Manager, the Inspectors have perused the records and obtained signature from his son, who is not at all concerned with the factory. He was not appointed as an in-charge of the factory, so as to give particulars of the factory. The Inspectors forcibly took the signature of the petitioner's son and seal of the factory to establish that 21 employees were working in the petitioner's factory. Whereas records disclosed that there were only 7 employees employed as is evident from the attendance register. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has failed to consider documents like attendance and wages register which determines the number of employees on the score that attendance and wages register are not authenticated by any other Government Agency/Department like Labour and ESIC. In fact balance sheet for the year 1996-97 was also not taken into consideration. Further certain error has been committed by the Inspectors like employees Sidh Nath and Chote Lal was taken from the attendance register, who were left job earlier and w