N.H.BHATT - (1.) * * * *
(2.) Two points were urged by Mr. I. C. Bhatt the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-institution. They are: (1) The respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had no authority to decide the question arising in the inquiry because the petitioner urged the contention regarding the number of persons employed in the establishment was a matter for the Central Government to decide and (2) The Authority had not applied its mind to the material regarding the number of persons employed and no reasons were recorded in respect of the material on the basis of which he purported to arrive at the said decision.
(3.) As far as the first contention is concerned it is devoid of any merit. Sec. 7 A (of Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act.) reads as follows:- 7 (1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner or any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner may by order deter- mine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act (the scheme or the Family Pension Scheme as the case may be) and for this purpose may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. (2) The officer conducting the inquiry under sub-sec. (i) shall for the purposes of such inquiry have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 for trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely: (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witness; and any such inquiry shall be deemed to boa judicial proceeding within the meaning of secs. 193 and 228 and for the purpose of sec. 196 of the Indian Penal Code. Even a casual glance at the sub-sec. (1) is sufficient to convince us that whole holding the inquiry under sec. 7A the respondent is acting as a quasi-judicial authority the primary function of which is to determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act Scheme or Family Pension Scheme as the case may be and for this purpose he is authorised to conduct the inquiry as he may deem necessary. In other words he is clothed with the authority to determine all the questions which ultimately lead to his determination of the amount due from any employer. If the employer contends that he does not fall within the pur- view of the Act either because the industry is not of the type mentioned in Schedule I or because the number of persons employed in the establish- ment does not reach the requisite number of 20 or more or any other ground which may be open to him and if such questions are dropping up before him it would be certainly within his competence to deal with them in order to enable him to decide his substantive power of deter- mining the amount due Those questions are questions which are basic questions on the basis of which the question of the amount due has got to be determined. ;