CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (122) CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 Date of Decision : April 01, 2025 Central Board of Trustees through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) .. Petitioner Versus M/s Hi-Grip Engineer (India) .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. None for the respondent. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-4645-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 10.03.2025, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 10.03.2025 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. CWP-9653-2017 1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which, the appeal filed by the respondent-establishment against the order dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the EPF Act and Miscellaneous HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 2 Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as ‘1952 Act’), has been set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the aforementioned impugned order is perverse and cannot be accepted especially when assessing the respondent-establishment adverse inference was raised against the respondent-establishment as it failed to produce the record of the number of employees working in the respondent-establishment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was done before recording the assessment as to whether, 20 or more employees were working in the respondent-establishment and as per the visit conducted on 10.02.2005, a list was prepared by the team of four enforcement officers wherein, 22 employees were found working, still, the order dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) has been set aside by the Appelleate Tribunal on the ground that there is no enough material evidence on record to prove that the respondent-establishment had employed more than 20 workmen at any given point of time so as to be covered under 1952 Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be set aside. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-establishment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 7. It may be noticed that as per the order of assessment dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Section 7-A of the 1952 Act, same has been passed on the ground that the respondent-establishment failed to produce the relevant record before the authorities concerned and adverse inference was drawn that more than 20 employees were working with the respondent- establishment so as to be covered under the 1952 Act. HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 3 8. The argument raised by the petitioner that drawing of adverse inference was valid in the facts and circumstances of the present case, has already been dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-4). 9. It may be noticed that after the premises were checked by the enforcement staff of the Provident Fund Office on 10.02.2005 and a report was given that 22 employees were working, which list of 22 employees was signed by one Vijay Kumar Supervisor. Said finding of fact by the Office of petitioner has been disbelieved by the Appellate Tribunal by giving due reasons. The first reason which is being given by the Tribunal is that the record maintained by the respondent-establishment was produced not only before the Provident Fund Authorities but the same record was also produced before the ESI Authorities in the year 2006 according to which, only 12 employees were working. It has already come on record that attendance register as well as salary register were produced before the ESI Authorities which fact has been accepted by the Appellate Tribunal to hold that record produced before ESI is a valid so as to rebut the presumption of the petitioner authorities to hold that there were more 20 employees who are working with the respondent-establishment so as to cover the said establishment under 1952 Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it could be a possibility that after the premises were checked by the authorities of the Provident Fund in the year 2005, the strength might have decreased which fact has been ignored and not accepted by the Tribunal hence, merely that in the year 2006, 12 employees were found working with the respondent- HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 4 establishment, cannot be a ground to hold that even in the year 2005, only 12 employees were working and not 22 despite the fact that a list of the employees was prepared and got signed by the Supervisor of the respondent- establishment. 11. Qua the said argument, it may be noticed that list of 22 employees which have been taken into account to hold the respondent-establishment liable under 1952 Act was signed by one Vijay Kumar stated to be the Supervisor of the establishment. It has already been recorded that no Vijay Kumar was working with the respondent-establishment, which fact has gone un-rebutted at the hand of the petitioner. 12. On being asked to show and prove the identity of the said Vijay Kumar so as to rely upon the said list, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out about the identity of the said Vijay Kumar. 13. Further, 22 employees were never produced or any statement of such 22 employees was recorded to prove that they were the employees the respondent-establishment. No such statement was ever produced before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal rightly held that keeping in view the fact that no Vijay Kumar was working with the respondent-establishment as a Supervisor and 22 employees stated to be working have not been examined or their statements have not been recorded so as to substantiate the list of 22 employees hence, the finding has been recorded that only 12 employees were working, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 14. Further, this Court is not sitting in an appeal over the decision of an Appellate Authority which is a statutory authority. Once on the basis of the evidence which had come on record, findings have been recorded and the said HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4645-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9653-2017 5 findings have not been shown to be perverse in any manner, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. April 01, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document