The importance of considering evidence and applying the provisions of the Act properly in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT :

This Court is anguished to remark that, in fact, no assistance has been provided by the learned counsel for the respondents as upon being called upon to answer the argument as it has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he rather submits that the matter may be remitted back so that it may be decided afresh.

2. In fact, this conduct of the counsel for the respondent, in itself is unbecoming of an officer of Court and, particularly, when the respondent is defending a cause of an organization.

3. In Writ-Petition No.1823 of 2011, the petitioner, which is a small scale proprietorship firm in the business of lime stone, has put a challenge to the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A. No.317(14)2006 under Section 7 I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (For short “the Act of 1952”); order dated 13.12.2005; and 19.04.2006 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Dehradun under Section 7-A and 7-B respectively of the Act of 1952, which are enclosed as annexure No.1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ-petition.

4. In Writ-Petition No.1822 of 2011, the petitioner, which is a small firm doing business of lime stone, has put a challenge to the order dated 06.06.2011 passed by Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A. No.318(14) 2006 under Section 7 I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952; order dated 13.12.2005; and 19.04.2006 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Dehradun under Section 7-A and 7-B respectively of the Act of 1952, which are enclosed as annexure No.1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ-petition.

5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ-petitions are that the provisions of the Act of 1952 would only apply to the organizations where there are more than 20 employees, who are established to be working, in order to enable and make the employers to contribute its contribution towards their employment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant proceedings under the Act are governed by the provisions as contained under Section 7(A) 2 of the Act, which provides, for that for the purpose of conducting an inquiry in order to arrive at a logical conclusion as to whether an organization is covered under the provisions of the Act or not, the Prescribed Authority is vested with ample of powers by drawing certain portions of the provisions of the C.P.C., which has been made applicable by Section 7(A) 2 of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:-

“Section 7A(2) in The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(2) The officer conducting the inquiry under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses, and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

7. The grievance of the present petitioner is that despite of having led sufficient evidence and having placed sufficient material to show that, in fact, they are not the employees of the units belonging to either of the petitioners, despite of the fact, that having led voluminous evidence which was preferred before the Prescribed Authority to establish, that the notices issued to them are bad in the eyes of law, but none of the documents have been considered by the Prescribed Authority while passing an order under Section 7(A) of the Act thereby imposing liability on the present petitioner with regards to