Trilok Singh vs State and others

Petitioner's grievance is that on 21. 6. 2006 respondent/department issued a notice under No. JK/K2497 90 asking him to deposit Rs.

98.632/= on account of contributions to workers Provident Fund and admission charges etc. within fifteen days there from where after the matter

would be referred to the Collector for appropriate action under law.

It appears that prior to institution of thus petition the petitioner has instituted a civil suit which was rejected by the Civil Court for want of

jurisdiction where after he instituted a writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one if need arose and that is how he has

approached the Court now.

The grievance projected is that aforesaid notice has been passed without conducting the requisite inquiry as envisaged under section

8AofProvidentFundAct 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ""the Act"") and was accordingly liable to be quashed. During course of submissions

at bar, learned counsel while canvassing the matter has also stated that after issuance of impugned notice the respondent/department has not issued

any other notice to him.

I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Under section 8A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1961, the authorized Officer

may determine the amount due from an employer under any of the provisions of the Act or Scheme formulated there under after conducting such

requisite inquiry as maybe deemed proper but only after giving such employer a reasonable opportunity of representing his case before him. For

benefit, the relevant provisions of said Section may be quoted herein below:

Sec. 8A: Determination of moneys due from employers:

(1) Any Officer authorized by the Government in this behalf may, by order, determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of

this Act or the Scheme and for this purpose may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. (2). xx JK sc

(3). No order determining the amount due from any employer shall be made under subsec. (1), unless the employer is given a reasonable

opportunity of representing his case.

(4). xx xc x

On the face of it, therefore, the provision while authorizing the concerned Officer to fix the liability of employer in terms thereof also casts an

obligation upon him to conduct an inquiry in the matter and pass orders thereupon only after hearing the concerned employer which does not

appear to have been done in the instant case nor is any such thing suggested by contents of the impugned notice.

Accordingly in order to clinch the matter and cut short the proceedings and with a view to have the matter conducted in accordance with the

aforesaid provision the petition, is with agreement of learned counsel disposed of with an observation that impugned notice shall be treated as the

preliminary notice to petitioner in terms of Sub section (3) above quoted, to which he shall file his reply within three weeks from now, where after

the respondents may pass final orders in accordance with rules and after conducting requisite inquiry as envisaged, within a period of three weeks

there from.

Copies of this order be sent to parties particularly respondents immediately. All CMPs also stand disposed of.