Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 15.04.2005 (P -1), 08.02.2007 (P -2) and 19.05.2010 (P -6) passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 against the statutory provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity 'the Act') and further prayer is for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 8,42,890/ -. Respondent No. 3 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. A memo of understanding was entered into between petitioner and respondent No. 3 for setting up of 5TDP (Tons per day) sugar manufacturing in the State of Punjab. The petitioner invested Rs. 30 lacs in the equity share capital of the company. Respondent No. 3 signed this agreement with petitioner on 17.04.1995. The petitioner has 26% equity contribution in the Company in order to promote agro industries in State of Punjab.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 7 -A(1) of the Act against respondent No. 3 as he had failed to remit the provident fund, family pension fund and insurance fund contributions for the period from 1997 to 2000. Vide order dated 15.04.2005 (P -1), recovery of Rs. 4,09,760/ - was sought from respondent No. 3. It was further indicated in the order that no efforts, whatsoever were made to serve other Directors of M/s. Punjab Bio. Tech Ltd. While passing order dated 15.04.2005 (P -1), attempts were made to serve respondent No. 3 but as per report of the postal department, the factory was reported to be closed. Bailable warrants of arrest were issued and no arrest could be made as the factory was lying closed and the whereabouts were not known. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 08.02.2007 (P -2) passed the order against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of Rs. 8,41,689/ - under the Act in respect of liability of respondent No. 3 as the petitioner was having a joint venture with respondent No. 3. The arrears was ordered to be deposited with SBI. Sector 17, Chandigarh or Demand Draft of the said amount in favour of RPFC, Chandigarh be forwarded to the office immediately failing which all actions as provided under Section 8 of the Act were ordered to be taken against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner -company filed an appeal against the order dated 08.02.2007 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that Section 7(i) of the act does not permit any appeal to be filed against the order of attachment or recovery warrant. As per 17(b), the transferee and the transferor were jointly and severally liable for the default in depositing the contribution.;