1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 5th July 2011 passed by respondent No.3 in ATA No.802(5)2008 whereby the appeal was dismissed and confirmed order dated 14th July 2008 passed by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,96,495/- towards employees provident fund under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2.0 Gujarat Shramjivi Kamdar Union made a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner has not paid contribution towards provident fund for th periodic year 2006-2007. The respondent No.1 therefore started an inquiry under section 7A of the Act. The petitioner had given reply to the complaint stating that the workers mentioned in the attached list No.1 and that the petitioner had paid the dues in respect of list No.2. The respondent No.1 ultimately passed an order directing the petitioner to make payment in the sum of Rs.10,96,495/- A review application was filed which also came to be rejected. Against the said order an appeal was preferred which came to be dismissed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. According to him all the persons mentioned in the list were not working with the petitioner and therefore the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.
4.0 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner at length. From the order itself it is evident that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend the case and in fact Director of the petitioner appeared before the authority. The Appellate authority has noted that in spite of number of opportunities the petitioner has not cooperated. The Commissioner has considered the Enquiry Officer's Report and Bonus Register which showed the dues.
5.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has tried to produce certain documents which were not produced before the competent authority. Hence it would not be appropriate to look into those documents at this stage.
6.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out anything from the record to take a different view of the matter. This petition is therefore dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top