IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper consideration of documentary evidence and the requirement for clear findings based on the available evidence in determining the applicability of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. R.N. Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

2. PRAYER:

The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“To issue Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 20.11.2014 passed in ATA No. 349(1) of 2010 by the 1stnd respondent Tribunal and quash the same as illegal and unjust and in consequence direct the 2 respondent to pay the dues assessed by the petitioner through order dated 30.04.2010 u/s 7B of the Act.”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(a) The relevant portion of the order impugned dated 20.11.2014 passed in ATA No. 349 (1) of 2010 on the file of Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, reads as under:

“19. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the arguments of the counsel for appellant and contended that the burden lies on the appellant to produce the records and to satisfy the contention raised by the respondent. In absence of these documents the respondent rightly came to the conclusion and passed order. He further stated that the judgment referred by the counsel for appellant is no relevancy of facts.

20. After considering the material available on records and after pursuing the judgment referred by the counsel for appellant, it is found that the respondent authority while passing the order has not exercised the jurisdiction properly which is vested on it and failed to consider the documents, records and register which were in the custody of the respondent herein. The findings of the respondent in coming to the conclusion that the applicability of the appellant company with retrospective effect w.e.f. 1992-93 is without any reason and without there being any evidence on record. The respondent has not filed any documents to show that there were 30 employees for the year 1992-93 and the said finding is vague and without any material on record.

21. After going through the letters of the appellant dated: 10.06.2003 and 22.05.2008, which shows that the respondent received the required documents such as Attendance register, wages register, salary slip and order of Hon'ble Labour Court in Rajkumar, Abdul Basith and Premraj which were received by one Janardhan Rao and R. Sridevi on 10.06.2003 and on 22.05.2008. All together about 17 documents were received by the respondent authority, but the respondent authority not even whispered nor gave any finding in respect to documents received by the respondent in impugned order. Moreover the respondent alleges that the appellant has not produced documents such as voucher for wages and salary for the relevant period is incorrect. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was in W.P. No. 6456/2009 were very clear that the respondent should pass an order basing upon the documentary evidence which were available on the said date. Admittedly in the present case the respondent has received the documents from the appellant pertaining to the alleged period on two different occasions. But there is no finding in the impugned order as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court.

22. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the respondent under Section 7-A and the order passed under Section 7-B of the Act are set aside and the appeal is allowed. Copy of the order be sent to both parties. File be consigned to the record room.

(b) The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in particular, Paras 4, 5, 7 to 10, read as under:

(4) It is respectfully submitted that the 2nd Respondent company was established in the year 1991 with 8 employees stared in premises admeasuring about 200 Sq. ft. The 2nd Respondent acquired his own premises in the year 1998. Since inception of the company it has been maintaining the attendance, wages register etc.

(5) It is submitted that, the Petitioner's officials visited the 2nd Respondent shop for th