SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner establishment challenging the legality and validity of the order Annexure-3 dated 2/5.1.2009 passed by Assistant PF. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Udaipur under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 (in short hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) and the order Annexure-5 dated 4/13.3.2009 passed under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 by the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Udaipur.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent no. 3 a former employee of the petitioner establishment submitted an application before the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the EPFO) for the recovery of his alleged P.F. dues from the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, EPFO replied to the said application vide letter Annexure-2 dated 2.5.2008 conveying that upon enquiry, the wages/salary of the employee was found to be Rs. 7600/- which was above the statutory wage limit of Rs. 6500/- per month. No deduction was made by the employer from his salary towards the RF. contribution. Thus the enquiry officer noted that the employee was not entitled to claim benefits under the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. The relevant portion of the order Annexure-2 is quoted below for the sake of ready reference:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) The employee respondent no. 3 was satisfied with the reply Annexure-2 and thus he persisted with his grievance and accordingly proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 were undertaken before the Assistant Commissioner, EPFO, Udaipur. The proceedings culminated by way of the assessment order Annexure-3, dated 2/5.1.2009 being passed against the petitioner whereby a sum of Rs. 27,801/- was determined as payable by way of E.RF. dues to the respondent no. 3 for the period between May, 2005 to September, 2006. The petitioner institution was also directed to award PF membership to the employee respondent no. 3. The petitioner establishment assailed the validity of the said assessment order by filing a review petition before the Assistant Commissioner on 30.1.2009. The review petition was dismissed by order Annexure -5 dated 4/13.3.2009. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached his Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order Annexure- 3 dated 2/5.1.2009 and the order Annexure-5 dated 4/13.3.2009.;