MALHARI AUTOMOBILES Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Jagtap and Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

(3.) The grievance made by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that though in a notice inviting petitioners for hearing the respondent specifically mentioned that hearing would be only in relation to issue of applicability of the act but the said respondent has stalled making enquiry also with a view to find out the amount of provident fund due. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that issue of applicability is required to be decided first and after such issue is decided and it is held that the employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , is applicable, then only the amount of provident fund contribution can be worked out. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 7-A. Clause (1) sub-clause (a) for that purpose. He has also relied upon the judgment of the rajasthan High Court in the case of Prem chand v. R. P. F. Commissioner, Jaipur, 2003 2 LLJ 119.