SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 and submits that, the impugned order by which liability under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been assessed in respect of 196 employees allegedly working under the petitioner, is erroneous for the reason that neither the complainant was examined nor any document disclosing employment of 196 persons by the petitioner was produced before the authority. Referring to the order passed in the proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, award in the said case has been passed only for 39 persons. It is further submitted that, though the petitioner and the contractor employed by the petitioner have been depositing the amount under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 regularly, the same has not been considered by the authority while making assessment under Section 7A of the Act.
(2.) MR . Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was initiated on behalf of 196 persons and therefore, the petitioner has been assessed under Section 7A of the Act for not depositing the P.F. amount for 196 persons.
(3.) FROM impugned order dated 06.05.2015 it does not appear that the assessment under Section 7A of the Act has been made on the basis of the order passed in the proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 though, the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 refers to the same. It appears that on behalf of the workmen photo copy of ACE2 was produced however, genuineness of the same was not established before the authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no report of the Enforcement Officer was produced before the authority at the relevant time and the only report which was available was made prior to 10.12.2014. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the petitioner has alternative remedy in filing appeal under Section 7 I of the Act and the petitioner may also prefer review under Section 7B of the Act.;