- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 62321 OF 2011 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S. DEVI MOTORS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS M.D., SRI. UMESH M. GOUDAR, AGE: YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PEACOCK HOTEL COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. & PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. & RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2002 MADE IN NO.KN/PF/SRO/HBL/ENF/2170/2002 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY SOUGHT FOR QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2010 MADE IN ATA NO.589(6) 2002 PASSED BY THE PROVIDENT FUND APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND R). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.27 12:54:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 30th August 2002 and the order dated 10th September, 2010. 3. The order dated 30th August, 2002 is passed by the respondent and the order dated 10th September, 2010 is passed by the appellate authority i.e. the appellate Tribunal. 4. In terms of the aforementioned orders, the petitioner9s claim is that it does not come under the provisions of Employees9 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is rejected. The petitioner9s contention is based on the premise at any given point of time since the establishment came into existence, number of employees were less than 20. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his contention would also refer to the accounts ledger and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 the wages register maintained by the establishment and it is his contention that these two documents have not been referred to by the Appellate Authority. 6. Referring to the impugned order, he would submit that the Appellate Authority has only considered the erroneous list of employees prepared by the officers of the respondent as such, the said document cannot be looked into. 7. It is his contention that names of two employees have been repeated and that had taken up the tally to 21 and if, those 2 names are excluded the number of employees would be less than 20 and the establishment would not come under the ambit of Act of 1952. 8. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the document produced by the respondent would clearly indicate that there are 21 employees and the document is signed by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has clearly recorded a finding that the wages paid to the 2 employees whose names are alleged to have been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 repeated (as contended by the petitioner) is erroneous. The salary paid to those employees are different, as such, those 2 employees are different, is the contention. 9. It is urged that when the officers inspected the premises there were 21 employees and the petitioner is bound by the provisions of Act of 1952. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. Prima-facie it is noticed that the list of employees prepared by the respondent authority is signed by authorized person of the petitioner establishment. However, it is also required to be noticed that the wage register maintained by the petitioner establishment and the ledger maintained by the petitioner establishment do not indicate that there are more than 21 employees. 12. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioner has not produced the entire ledger from the date of inception of the establishment till the inspection took place. Petitioner has only produced the ledger between the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 months of 01.04.1999 to 30.04.1999 and 01.05.1999 to 31.05.1999. The wages register is again for the April, 1999 and May, 1999. It is relevant to notice that the Appellate Authority has not considered the wages register and the account ledger. The Court has also noticed that the petitioner has been selective in producing the wages and account registers. Under these circumstances, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 13. The petitioner is directed to produce all the records relating to the wages register and employee register and any other relevant records to enable the Tribunal to consider the case on merits. 14. Hence, the following:- ORDER: i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority is set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16239 WP No. 62321 of 2011 iv. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. v. All contentions kept open. vi. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2025 without any further notice from the Tribunal. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 5