AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., has challenged the notice of demand (Annexure -3) issued under the signature of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur, by which the concerned respondent held that the establishment of the petitioner, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. was engaged in "Non -ferros Metal and Alloy Industry in the form of ingots" which is included in Schedule 1 in Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and thereby called upon the petitioner to remit/deposit the Employees Provident Fund Amount and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance dues for the period from 16.10.1967 to 31.12.1996 and Family Pension Fund Contributions from January, 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Uranium Corporation of India Limited, i.e. the petitioner though is a mineral industry, but is not producing any Non -ferros Metal or Alloy in the form of ingots and, therefore, it is not covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with any notice to show cause prior to issuance of Annexure -3 nor any enquiry as contemplated under Section 7A of the Act was made and, therefore, the demand of Annexure -3 is illegal.
(3.) THE stand of the petitioner has strongly contested by respondent No. 1 to 3. In para 24 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner against the said notice of demand was rejected and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 11.3.1997. Though in the counter affidavit it is stated that the said order dated 11.3.1997 is being annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit but no such document has been annexed with the counter affidavit. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respective parties were asked to produce the aforesaid order/letter, rejecting the representation of the petitioner but they showed their inability to produce the same. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to decide that as to on which ground and on what basis the respondents authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner.;