REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. GRASIM CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the order dtd. 4/5/2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Case No.ATA No.116(8)2003.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that, the respondent No.1 establishment is involved in the business of manufacturing Cement having its factory at Ravana. Manufacturing process of the respondent No.1 establishment started on 29/3/1995. The strength of the employees under respondent No.1 was 1025. The Enforcement Officer of the petitioner inspected the respondent's unit on 24/6/1995 and issued a show cause notice to comply with the provisions of Employees Provident Funs Act, 1952 (in short, the Act). The stand of the Enforcement Officer was that the unit was an extended unit of one M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., Nagda (MP). The contention of the Enforcement Officer had clubbed the two units as one entity and since the unit of M/s Grasim Industries had already an establishment which was covered under the provisions of the Act, there was no reason why the respondent No.1 establishment should not comply with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The respondent No.1 entered appearance and submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and finally an order was passed on 11/2/1998 allotting separate code to the respondent No.1 establishment for covering its employees engaged therein. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 voluntarily made contribution of its employees w.e.f. 22/9/1997 on 11/12/3.1998. The respondent No.1 also challenged the applicability of the clubbing of two units before the respondent No.2 authority which remanded the matter back to the petitioner for a fresh adjudication. The petitioner issued fresh notice for levying interest and damages under the provisions of Ss. 7Q and 14B of the Act. The respondent again contested the matter and contended that there was no delay on their part as immediately after the petitioner alloted the code to the respondent No.1, payment was made by it.