E J VARKEYCHEN Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCOPE MINAR CORE II 4TH FLOOR LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P3 Order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. THE issue is regarding coverage of the petitioners establishment for the period from 1.04.1999 to 1.11.2009. THE petitioner's establishment has been covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act for short) with effect from 1.11.2009. Prior to the coverage of the petitioner's establishment, the 2nd respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act seeking to cover the establishment with effect from 1.4.1999. THE petitioner disputed the applicability of the Act contending that the number of employees in this establishment was below the statutory minimum. However, the said contention was rejected by the 2nd respondent and a determination order was passed, which is Ext.P2. THE petitioner had challenged the same before the Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P3 is the order thereof.

(2.) ACCORDING to M/s. Ashok B. Shenoy who appears for the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has found categorically that the number of employees in the petitioner's establishment was eighteen, which included a Plumber, Electrician and Gardener. In view of the fact that the records produced reveal that the number of employees in the petitioner's establishment was less than twenty, it has been held in Ext.P3 that there is no material on record to hold that the staff strength of the petitioner's establishment was twenty. For the above reason it has been held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner's establishment. However, the Tribunal has directed the 2nd respondent to determine the strength of the employees of the petitioner's establishment afresh. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction in Ext.P3.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that the Appellate Authority has found in Ext.P3 that the number of employees in the petitioner's establishment was below the statutorily stipulated minimum. After considering the issue, the Appellate Tribunal has concluded the issue in the following words.