JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. Petitioner has a Hotel in district Nainital. According to the petitioner, it employees less than 20 persons and as such the provisions of Provident Fund Act, (the Act for short) are not applicable.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice on December 14, 1981 to the petitioner under Section 7(a) of the Act that it is employing more than 20 persons and as such the Act is applicable and the petitioner was to deposit the required amount as contemplated under the Act. Petitioner replied to the letter dated December 14, 1981 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that it has employed less than 20 persons and as such the Act is not applicable. This correspondence between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the petitioner went on for sometime. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner kept on insisting that the petitioner should deposit the required amount without deciding the representation by the petitioner that as it has employed less than 20 persons, the Act is not applicable. The last reply sent by the petitioner, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was dated August 5, 1982 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition); and the petitioner on the same date also sent a representation to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act stating therein that it employs less than 20 persons and as such the Act is not applicable. The Central Government has power under Section 19-A(iii) to decide about the number of persons employed. In pursuance of this notice the Central Government sent a notice on August 13, 1992 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) that August 27, 1982 has been fixed on the representation of the petitioner for hearing by the Legal Advisor, Ministry of Labour on behalf of Central Government at Karnataka State Government Chatram, Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi.
2.1 According to the petitioner, he was ready to go and appear before the Legal Advisor on August 27, 1992, but just before that date there were heavy rains and major landslides damaging the Hotel compound and a telegram was sent on August 25, 1992 to adjourn the hearing for some other date. According to the petitioner, he also sent a letter confirming this fact on August 26, 1982. These facts have not been denied. The Central Government did not adjourn the case on August 27, 1982 and decided the case on merits. It is against this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The date fixed for appearance was August 27, 1982. The petitioner could not appear on that date. In view of the fact stated above there was sufficient reason for non-appearance on that date. Petitioner had sent a telegram and thereafter sent a letter. In the circumstances of the case, the date should have been adjourned and another date should have been fixed. The order dated August 27, 1982 has been passed without hearing the petitioner and is quashed. It will be open to the Government to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been issuing notices to the petitioner to deposit the amount on the footing that the Act is applicable, which is being disputed by the petitioner. It is only the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who was not deciding this dispute. It will be open to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to await the decision of the Central Government or take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner after giving him opportunity to show cause if 20 persons are employed in his establishment or not. With these observations the writ petition is allowed.