Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 900 (GAU)

Ahar v. State of Assam

2017-07-12

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. R.Karim, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being the authorities in the Provident Fund Organization and Mr. M.R Adhikary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 being the Union of India. 2. The petitioners are the proprietors, functioning under the name M/s Ahar, M/s Ahar Hotel and M/s Aheli and they have their principle place of business at Sib-bari Road, Karimganj. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. Nikhil Ranjan Mazumdar being the proprietor whereras the petitioner No.3 is represented by Mr. Nirupam Majumdar being the son of Nikhil Ranjan Mazumdar, who projects himself to be the partner of the petitioner No.3. 3. What is noticeable is that all the three petitioners being M/s Ahar, M/s Ahar Hotel and M/s Aheli are all conducting their businesses from Sib-Bari Road, Karimganj and that the businesses are being conducted from one single premise. It is also noticed that in the proforma for coverage to be submitted by the employer under the Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the name of the establishment was shown as Aheli Restaurant, Ahar Restaurant and Ahar Hotel, where the respective functions are said to be of serving non-veg food, veg-food and lodging. The aforesaid information provided by the petitioner also gives an indication that all the three petitioners are in fact a part of one single establishment. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioners are aggrieved by a coverage letter dated 31.08.2009 of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, North Eastern Region at Bhangagarh. In the said coverage letter, it is stated that the establishment of the petitioners has 21 employees and therefore, they come within the purview under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short Act of 1952). It is stated by the authorities that the minimum number of employees required for an establishment to be covered by the said Act of 1952 is 20. By the said coverage letter of 31.08.2009, the petitioner’s establishment had been included within the purview of the said Act of 1952 by providing them with code No.AS/8807. The petitioners assail the said coverage letter of 31.08.2009 on the ground that the petitioners in fact are employing less than 20 numbers of employees. 5. Mr. By the said coverage letter of 31.08.2009, the petitioner’s establishment had been included within the purview of the said Act of 1952 by providing them with code No.AS/8807. The petitioners assail the said coverage letter of 31.08.2009 on the ground that the petitioners in fact are employing less than 20 numbers of employees. 5. Mr. R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that in the coverage letter dated 31.08.2009, 21 numbers of employees name were reflected. But the names of the two proprietors of the petitioners’ establishment had also been included and as the proprietors cannot be construed to be employees, therefore, the total number of employees for the petitioners ought to be 19 and not 21. 6. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the other hand refers to Annexure-A page 21 of their affidavit in opposition. The page-20 of Annexure-A is a covering letter of Sri Nikhil Ranjan Mazumdar being the proprietor of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Guwahati, by which, a coverage proposal was submitted by the said proprietor of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The following page-21 is a copy of the proforma for coverage submitted by the employer being the said proprietor of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In Clause-5 of the said proforma for coverage, it is stated that the employment strength of the establishment is 21 in number. In column-12 of the said proforma for coverage, which requires the details of the employees to be provided, it is seen that there appears 22 numbers of employees of the petitioners’ establishment and the names of the said 22 numbers of employees are also provided therein. The said proforma for coverage is under the signature of Sri Nikhil Ranjan Mazumdar being the proprietor of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 7. As the proforma coverage under the signature of the proprietor of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 clearly states that the petitioner establishment has 22 number of employees, the contention of the petitioners in this writ petition that they have in fact 19 numbers of employees cannot be prima-facie accepted. 1 and 2. 7. As the proforma coverage under the signature of the proprietor of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 clearly states that the petitioner establishment has 22 number of employees, the contention of the petitioners in this writ petition that they have in fact 19 numbers of employees cannot be prima-facie accepted. Further the said 22 numbers of employees reflected in the proforma for coverage also do not show the name of any proprietor of the petitioners’ establishment, which would enable the petitioners to reduce their number of employees. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason in interfering with the coverage letter dated 31.08.2009. But, however, as the learned counsel for the petitioners is strenuously urging that the petitioners establishment had lesser numbers of employees than 20, this Court deems it appropriate that the petitioners may file a representation before the appropriate authority stating the detail particulars of the employees that the petitioners establishment had as on 12.08.2009 when the said proforma for coverage was submitted before the authority. 9. In the event, the petitioners can satisfy the appropriate authority of the respondent Employees Provident Fund Organization that in fact the number of employees on the said date was less than 20, the said authority may pass appropriate orders on the same. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands closed.