AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees'' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 5.2.2010 at Annexure-B and consequential notice dated 16.11.2011 at Annexure-D, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was not given an opportunity. Before the Appellate Authority, records were not produced. The Appellate Authority, relying only on the finding of the Regional Authority, has held that there were 22 employees engaged by the petitioner - employer and the organisation is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the records of the employer are with the Regional Authority They were not produced before the Appellate Authority and further submits that the employer had never engaged more than 9 employees and the employment is not governed under the provisions of the Act.
Be that as it may, if there is any error apparent to the face of the record in the order of the Appellate Authority under the Provisions of Section 7L(2) of the Act, the petitioner can seek rectification of the same. If there are any records with the petitioner to show that the employment was never more than 9 employees, it is open for him to file application before the Appellate Authority. If such an application is filed, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. However, in the meanwhile, the enforcement of Annexure-B is stayed for a period of four weeks.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Smt. Sumangala A. Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks.