WP/27930/2005 of Smt.Pulavarthi Naga Lakshmi Chandramathi, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, 26-1-1, on 29 December 2005

ORDER:

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, East Godavri District,Kakinada, initiated proceedings under the Provisions of the Employees’Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’)against an Agency, by name ‘M/s.Sona’, by issuing statutory notice. Earlier, theestablishment was owned by one Mr.Narain Das Khem Chand Mankani, and thepetitioner claims to have purchased it on 08.04.2004. On the ground that therewas no response from the recipients of the notice, the 1[st] respondent passedan order, dated 04.08.2005, determining the liability of the subscriber i.e.,M/s.Sona. The 2[nd] respondent, in turn, took necessary steps for recovery ofthe amount.

When the petitioner came to know about these developments, she filed anapplication before the 1[st] respondent together with an affidavit under Section 7-A (4) of the Act. The 1[st] respondent passed an order, dated 30.11.2005,rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselfor the respondents.

On account of the transfer of the establishment, which is under obligation to pay the contribution, some communication gap has taken place, in the matter ofinitiation of proceedings under the Act. It is not in dispute that the establishmenti.e., M/s.Sona, was covered under the Act. The dispute related to a particularperiod i.e, from May 2004 to April 2005. It is almost about this time that thetransfer is said to have taken place in relation to the establishment. Thingswould have altogether different, had the transfer been brought to the notice ofthe 1[st] respondent. For one reason or the other, neither the transfer wasintimated to the respondents nor the necessary intimation was furnished, whenthe notice was served in the proceedings.

Be that as it may, once the petitioner had approached the respondents with anapplication, narrating the relevant facts, necessary correctives ought to havebeen made. It is not as if the petitioner is avoiding the liability as a whole. Thepetitioner states that ever since she has taken over the establishment, thenumber of employees is less than twenty and in that view of the matter, the Actdoes not apply. These are the things, which need to be examined. Instead ofrejecting the application of the petitioner on technical grounds, the 1[st]respondent should have verified the relevant facts and pass fresh orders.

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.The 1[st] respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, duly taking intoaccount, the explanation offered by the petitioner. Till such time, the liabilityfastened against the petitioner through proceedings, dated 04.08.2005, shall notbe enforced. There shall be no order as to costs.

Jsu

_________

29.12.2005