- (1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.1.1992 whereby it was held that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the schemes framed thereunder, were applicable to the petitioner-college. By a letter dated 16.4.1992 the petitioner-college protested against this order on the ground that it had only 18 permanent employees and that the Act was not applicable to it. After further correspondence an order dated 2.6.1992 was passed reiterating that the petitioner-college had been correctly covered under the Act and is also the subject matter of challenge to this petition. The said order is reproduced herein below :- "Your case regarding applicability of E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952 has been again examined and it has been found that your estt. has been covered correctly w.e.f. 1.9.91. You are, therefore, requested to report compliance w.e.f. 1.9.91 and it is further intimated that Act applies to temporary/part time employees also."
(2.) Mr. Gopal Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner states than the said orders are in flagrant violation of Section 7-A of the Act because the same mandates an inquiry before determining the amount due under the provisions of this Act. The Section further lays down that the powers of an officer conducting such an inquiry would be analogous to that of a civil Court in respect of enforcing the attendance and examining any person on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; receiving on affidavit and issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and that no order could be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of representing his case to any employer. In this connection he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in K.P.A.K. Mahavidyalaya, Ambala City b The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridbad and others, reported as 1992(2) SCT 114 : 1992(2) Recent Services Judgments 176, wherein this Court held as follows :- "I am of the view that in the circumstances of the present case, the commissioner should have conducted in inquiry to find out as to whether or not the petitioner had actually made any deposit regarding the employees working in the institution. If the deposit had been made under the directions of the appropriate authority an such deposit was actually hypothecated with an authority of the Education Department, in the normal course of events, the petitioner could not have been compelled to make the deposit again. The Commissioner could have summoned the Director of Education or District Education Officer, to verify the facts and thereafter proceeded to determine the liability of the petitioner. On a persual of the pleadings of the parties, I find that the Commissioner had failed to conduct an inquiry as envisaged under Section 7-A of the Act and as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. In such situation it is not possible to uphold the order determining the liability of the petitioner."
(3.) I find that this judgment covers the case in hand. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 13.1.1992, 2.6.1992 and 11.5.1993 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 1 to take a fresh decision in the matter after following the procedure laid down in Section 7-A of the Act. No order as to costs.;