2025:CGHC:58743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 6867 of 2010

1 - M/s Surya Products Aged About 36 Years Through- Its Proprietor Shri Usmath Lal Tejwan, Shed No. 4, Industrial Area, Borai, Distt. Durg C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4th HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Floor, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi 1100 92.

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN 2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of Employees Provident Fund ANSARI Date: 2025.12.08 Organization, Regional Office, Indira Gandhi Vyavasaik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur

17:08:37 +0530 (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

03.12.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s);

“10.1) That order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by Ld. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No. ATA 680(8)/2004 be Kindly quashed.

10.2) That order dated 9.7.2004 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 2 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Raipur be kindly quashed.

10.3) Recovery notice issued by the recovery officer dated 25/10/10 (Annexure P/13) for recovery of Rs 4,21,888 =00 along with interest amounting to Rs. 2,86884 which comes to Rs. 7,08772-00 be kindly quashed.

10.4) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

10.5) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship establishment engaged in the manufacturing of biscuits and bread. The Enforcement Officer of respondent No. 2 inspected the petitioner’s establishment on 03.02.1999 and alleged that 22 employees were working therein. A report was subsequently prepared indicating that 6 regular employees and 16 daily-wage employees were engaged in the establishment. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act of 1952") for the period from February 1998 to January 2004. On the dates fixed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner could not appear, and consequently an ex parte assessment order dated 01.07.2004 was passed. In the said order, respondent No. 2 treated the alleged 16 casual employees as continuously working throughout the entire period from February 1998 to January 2004 and assessed dues amounting to Rs. 8,43,777/- without any supporting documentary evidence. The authority further assumed that the average daily earning of each employee was Rs. 80/- and that the total number of employees was 22 for the entire assessment period. Based on this assessment, demand notices were issued to the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which, vide order dated 01.10.2010, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.10.2010, the assessment order dated 12.07.2004, and the consequential demand notices. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 has not been followed. He submits that the conclusion regarding the engagement of 16 casual workers is based solely on assumptions and presumptions. No identification, particulars, or details of such alleged workers were ever recorded by respondent No. 2. Section 7A contemplates a proper inquiry after ascertaining the identity and particulars of the employees, and in the absence of such exercise the entire inquiry stands vitiated. Accordingly, the orders dated 25.10.20