Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged an order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Jalpaiguri on August 11, 2017. It appears that the total amount determined by the authority under Section 7A and 7Q of the said Act is more than Rs. 1 crore 91 lac.
(2.) At the hearing of the writ petition Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate for the petitioners, is not challenging the propriety of the order. The petitioners appear to be more concerned with the liberty to liquidate the outstanding dues in instalments. However, he had taken a point, on instruction, that the inspection report has not been provided to him.
(3.) Ms. Banerjee, the learned advocate for the Provident Fund authorities, has produced a bunch of records. Let the same be kept with the records. The papers belies the contention of the petitioners. Moreover, from the records produced in court it appears that the Senior Manager representing the petitioner no. 1 tea estate has specifically submitted that he had nothing further to submit. The order-sheet recorded that several opportunities had been provided to the establishment but the Senior Manager had not submitted anything. Therefore, the proceeding was concluded. This order-sheet was signed by the concerned Senior Manager on June 21, 2017. Ms. Banerjee submits that out of Rs. 1 crore 91 lac and odd to be paid by the petitioner, about Rs. 76 lac represent the employees' contribution. The alleged financial constraints of the petitioner no. 1 company should not stand in the way of liquidating the employees' share as the employees' contribution had been regularly deducted from the salary of the employees but not remitted to the Provident Fund authorities.;