- (1.) HEARD Sri R. K. Awasthi and Sri Mohit kumar, the learned counsels for the petitioner. List of hearing cases has been revised. No one appears on behalf of Provident Fund commissioner.
(2.) IT appears that the Provident Fund commissioner initiated proceeding under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. A notice dated December 26, 1988 was served upon the petitioner advising the petitioner to submit a statutory return for the period June 1978 to November 1989 (sic ). It is contended that the petitioner replied to aforesaid notice indicating that the provision of the Provident fund Act was not applicable and that only 9 persons were employed in the petitioner's firm. This fact has been specifically stated in paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition. In paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the reply of the petitioner was duly acknowledged by the Inspector. In paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, it has been stated that a fresh notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on June 20, 1989, pursuant to which, the petitioner applied for an adjournment, and thereafter, another notice dated June 27, 1989 was issued intimating the petitioner that August 1, 1989 has been fixed as the next date, in which, the petitioner also applied for an adjournment. These averments, as stated aforesaid, has been mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 to 8 of the writ petition which has not been denied in paragraph No. 2 of the counter affidavit.
(3.) THE impugned order, dated December 27, 1989 has been passed ex parte determining the provident fund and other dues payable by the petitioner for the period June 1978 to february 1989. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.;