- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Basak, J. , whereby the learned Judge discharged the rule nisi obtained by the appellants on their application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE appellants are the partners of the firm K. M. P. Products. They are also the partners of the firm kalooram Mahadeo Prasad. That firm manufactures edible oil. It is alleged by the appellants that they have entered into an agreement with the firm Kalooram Mahadeo prasad to this effect that the appellants would pack up oil belonging to the said firm in tin containers in lieu of remuneration. Respondent 1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, west Bengal, by his letter, dated 25 May 1970, directed the appellants to comply with the provisions of the Employees provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Employees' provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the scheme)on the ground that the appellant's establishment was a scheduled industry as it had been manufacturing edible oil within the meaning of S. 2 (i-a) of the Act, Thereafter a correspondence ensued between the appellants and respondent I. The appellants denied that their establishment was a scheduled industry or that the Act and the scheme applied to their establishment. Ultimately, respondent 1 by his letter, dated 17 November 1971, informed the appellants that their case was carefully examined and the establishment of the appellants was found to be a scheduled industry as it was engaged in the manufacture of "edible oil" within the meaning of S. 2 (i-a)of the Act. By another letter, dated 29 December 1971, respondent 1 demanded from the appellants a sum of Rs. 9000 as the employer's contribution from June 1970 to november 1971, and also administrative charges amounting to Rs. 325 for the said period. The appellants moved a writ petition on the original side of this Court challenging the said orders of respondent I and obtained a rule nisi being Matter No. 82 of 1972. On 13 November 1973, when the rule came up for hearing before Masud, J , none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The rule was, however, disposed of by Masud, J. , on that day. The appellants were directed to have their grievances redressed and to make their submissions before respondent i with regard to the determination of the amount due from them after proper enquiry as provided under S. ?a of the Act. The said order was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
(3.) THEREAFTER, respondent I issued a notice, dated 10 January 1974, under S. 7 A of the Act for the purpose of determination of the amount due from the appellants. The appellants were also directed to produce certain books and registers as specified in the said Notice. It appears that appellant 2 appeared before respondent 1 and submitted that their establishment did not come within the meaning of scheduled industries and so they were not liable under the provisions of the Act and the scheme. Respondent 1, however, came to the finding that the appellants' establishment was a scheduled industry and the provisions of the Act and the scheme were applicable to them. The said decision of respondent 1 was verbally communicated to appellant 2, which will appear from the order of respondent 1, dated 4 February 1974. Further it appears from the said order that as appellant 2 did not produce the books and registers that were called for, the amount due from the establishment of the appellants could not be calculated. Appellant 2, however, assured respondent 1 that he would intimate respondent 1 about the amount due from the establishment within thirty days from that date. Instead of doing that the appellants moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained the rule nisi out of which this appeal arises.;