Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 8.11.1996 (Annexure P-20), passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Commissioner'), under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the EPF Act'); order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure P-22) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order; order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P-24) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal for setting aside of ex-parte order dated 31.5.2010; and notice of demand dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-25), issued by the Recovery officer.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a company in which another company namely Punjab Tractors Limited (for short, 'the PTL') was amalgamated on 16.2.2009. The PTL was covered under the provisions of the EPF Act from the very beginning. It had been making regular contributions under the EPF Act. In addition to the employees employed directly, the establishment had also engaged certain contractors which were duly registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, the 1970 Act'). The contractors were managing the records of the employees engaged by them and were complying with the provisions of the EPF Act independently. In March 1991, in an unfortunate tragedy 22 employees of the PTL and 5 other persons were shot dead by terrorists after hijacking a staff bus. The then contractor was also shot dead in that incident. On this count, the payment of contribution in respect of the employees employed by the contractors was apparently delayed.
(3.) The Provident Fund Commissioner asked for the details of the contractors engaged by the petitioner, number of employees through the contractors and the details of payments made to them since 1980 onwards. The notice was issued on 18.4.1995. Despite submissions of details and showing its inability to produce, some of the records being very old, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, the Commissioner vide order dated 8.11.1996 assessed dues to the tune of Rs.span 22,27,919/- in respect of 131 employees for the period from 1980 to March 1995. The aforesaid demand was challenged before this court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19472 of 1996. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal was constituted to hear appeals against the order of Commissioner with effect from 1.7.1997. The writ petition was disposed of by this court with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner by filing appeal. The appeal was filed. As an interim measure, the Tribunal stayed the impugned order subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. The appeal remained pending before the Tribunal at Delhi. As there was no presiding officer from 2007 onwards it was not taken up for hearing and no date of hearing as such was fixed. All of a sudden it was directed to be heard at Circuit Bench at Chandigarh on 19.5.2010 for which no notice was received by the petitioner. Only an order dated 31.5.2010 was received dismissing the appeal on merits in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. Immediately thereafter the file was inspected and application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2010.;