Rajnesh Oswal JUDGMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The petitioner-company claims to have obtained the registration under Central Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and further claims to have been regularly depositing the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) in the State Bank of India, Employees Provident Fund Organization Delhi North in respect of all its 107 employees including 54 working in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir in connection with maintenance and operation of Vodafone sites. It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 relying upon some inspection conducted by the Provident Fund Inspector in the office of the petitioner-company at 597-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, vide its communication dated 06.11.2013 called upon the petitioner-company to implement the Provident Fund Scheme by deducting Provident Fund contributions from its employees @12 % of the total salary and deposit the same into account of the respondent No. 1 along with its matching share and administrative charges @ 5%, on the ground that the unit/establishment was covered under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir EPF Act, 1961.
2. The petitioner-company further claims to have replied the said communication through its counsel, whereby the respondent No. 2 was intimated that the petitioner-company or its unit operating in Jammu is not liable to make any contribution on account of EPF as the petitioner-company was already registered with the EPF Organization, New Delhi and all the employees including 54 working in Jammu were covered by the EPF scheme prepared under the Central Act.
3. The case projected by the petitioner in the present petition is that respondent No. 2 without holding any further enquiry into the matter and affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, on its own, worked out the arrears payable by the petitioner on account of EPF contribution, administrative charges and damages etc. and served the petitioner-company with the notice dated 17.01.2015 for payment of Rs. 16,17,565/-and a similar communication dated 17.01.2015 was also issued to M/s Vodafone Essar Space Tel Ltd. Jammu. The petitioner has impugned both the communications each dated 17.01.2015 addressed to the petitioner-company and to the Principal Employer of the petitioner i.e. M/s Vodafone Essar Space Tel Ltd. Jammu, on the following grounds:
(1) that the petitioner-company is already registered with EPF Organization, New Delhi under the provisions of the Central Act i.e. The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and as such, the petitioner-company cannot be forced to comply with the provisions of the J&K Employees Provident Funds (And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961.
(2) that the Jammu and Kashmir Employees Provident Funds (and Miscellaneous Provident) Act, 1961 applies only to such establishments which fall within the definition of a factory or industry specified in Schedule-1 and in which 10 or more persons are employed at any time and also to such other establishment or business which the Government may by notification in the Government gazette declare to be an establishment for the purpose of this Act. The services being provided by the petitioner do not fall within the purview of J&K EPF and MP Act, 1961.
(3) that the communications impugned have been issued in utter violation of principle of natural justice because as per the mandate of Section 8-A of the Act, 1961, the amount due from any employer can be determined only after conducting an enquiry into the matter and while conducting the enquiry, employer must be afforded reasonable opportunity for representing his case.
4. Reply stands filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has itself admitted about the engagement of 54 employees in the erstwhile Sta........