V.A. Mohta, J.@mdashRegional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa passed order dated March 3, 1987 u/s 7-A of the
Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act. 1952 (the Act) determining Rs. 24,282.90 as the amount from M/s. Jaswala Tiles
and Pipes Works. Chandrapur (the employer) for the period January 1983 to September, 1986 and issued a demand notice dated April 20, 1987
on that basis. Aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed.
2. Undisputed position seems to be that the employer was given Code No. MH/22116 under the Act. A summons to appear at Bombay on
October 7, 1986 was issued for the purposes of determining the amount due under the Act. Repeated applications for adjournments were made
from time to time by the employer. Enquiry was last fixed on March 3, 1987. None appeared even on that date. Evidence of Smt. N. P. Satghar.
Provident Fund Inspector, was recorded. On the basis of her evidence, the returns submitted by the employer, and on verification of records, the
impugned order was passed.
3. Three contentions are raised before us. The first is that the order is passed without hearing and, therefore, is vitiated for non-compliance of
principles of natural justice. We do not see any substance in this point. Copies of only two applications one dated October 1, 1986 and the other
dated November 3, 1986 are annexed to the petition. The other applications including the first and the last one are not placed on record. By these
two applications for adjournment the employer had requested the Commissioner to reconsider the direction of bringing the record to Bombay on
the ground that it would cause great hardship and inconvenience. It is also stated therein that as not more than 15 to 16 labourers were employed,
the Act did not apply. Now, the office of the Commissioner is at Bombay and the request of the employer for not calling the record at Bombay
was not reasonable. Hence no illegality was committed in not granting the said request. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner was not keeping
good health and had telegraphically informed the authority of his inability to take part in the proceedings and that even a medical certificate was
submitted. The copy of the said telegram or the medical certificate is not even produced before us. Under all these circumstances it cannot be said
that the order is passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the employer.
4. It is next contended that the order is ""non-speaking"" as it does not specifically refer to the contention about the number of employees and
consequent non-applicability of the Act. This contention is also not correct. The order refers to the evidence of the Inspector and the report
prepared on verification of records of the employer. No doubt, there is no specific reference to the contention of the employer about the number of
employees being only 15 to 16. But that by itself does not make the order ""non-speaking"". The adjournment application do not even disclose as to
since when the number of employees came to 15 to 16. The employer was given code number under the Act which implies that at one stage the
employer did attract the provisions of the Act. The Act does not cease to apply even if the number of employees subsequently drops down below
the requisite number. Applicability of the Act thus does not depend upon the continued employment of the requisite number of employees. There is
not even a whisper in the application about the point of time since when the number of employees was 15 to 16 as alleged. In the whole
background it was the employer''s duty to satisfy the Commissioner about non-applicability of the Act, which he failed to do. Moreover the point
was casually raised in the application for adjournment. Our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case of Delhi Iron
and Steel Stockists Assn. Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner, . That was a case where a lumpsum was determined without disclosing the basis. Such
an order was quashed on the ground that it was a ''non-speaking'' order. The ratio of that judgment clearly does not apply to the present case.
5. All that survives for consideration is the last point about Section 7-A of the Act being procedurally unreasonable in view of the finality attached
to the order under sub-section (4). There is a long line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the question, taking a view that mere
absence of a provision for appeal or revision does not render the provision unreasonable. Several factors such as general scheme of the Act, the
purposes intended to be achieved, rank of the authority whose decision is made final, the type of the enquiry, the parties likely to be involved and
host of several such aspects become relevant. The Act in question is a social legislation. Section 7-A is attracted only when the employer fails in his
legal obligation to make contribution. Interest of poor employees is involved and the realisation of the amount has, therefore, to be quick. Person of
the high rank of a Commissioner or such other officer authorised by the Central Government u/s 14-B is alone vested with the adjudicative
powers. The Act only provides for an opportunity of being heard but in certain matters the officer is vested with the powers vested in a Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure. No such complicated question of fact are generally involved. The enquiry is deemed to be judicial enquiry
within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 and for the purpose of Section 196, Indian Penal Code. If under these circumstances the Legislature in
its wisdom thought that the order should be made final and should not be subjected to either appeal or revision, there is nothing arbitrary or
unreasonable in the said legislative policy. In the case of Organo Chemical Industries and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , an
unsuccessful challenge on the similar ground was made to Section 14-B of the Act. Therein it is observed (p. 420) :
Nor is the plea of absence of guidelines or appellate review sound enough to subvert the validity of Section 14-B. It is attractive to hear the
argument that an order passed by an authority, which becomes infallibly final in the absence of an appeal or revision, is apt to be arbitrary and bad.
An appeal is a desirable corrective but not an indispensable imperative and while its presence is an extra cheek on wayward orders, its absence is
not a sure index of arbitrary potential. It depends on the nature of the subject matter, other available correctives, possible harm flowing from wrong
orders and a wealth of other factors.
6. What applies to Section 14-B also applies to Section 7-B.
7. While testing the validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, on the ground of procedural unfairness in the absence of the appellate provision, in
the case of the Fatehchand Himmatlal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, ., it is observed :
Does the absence of a right of appeal render the procedure unreasonable ? It depends. Where the subject-matter is substantial and fraught with
serious consequences and complicated questions are litigatively terminated summarily, without a second look at the findings by an appellate body,
it may well be that unfairness is inscribed on the face of the law, but where little men, with petty debts, legally illiterate and otherwise handicapped,
are pitted against money - lenders with stamina, astuteness, awareness of legal rights and other superiority, if the purpose of instant relief is to be
accomplished, the provision of an appeal may, in many cases, prove a built-in body trap that frustrates and ruins the hand-to-mouth debtor. No
surer method of baulking the object can be devised than enticing the debtor into an appellate bout! Daughter gone and ducats too, will be the
sequel! Of course, where the enquiry is a travesty of justice or violation of provisions, where the finding is a perversity of adjudication or fraud on
power, the High Court is not powerless to grant remedy, even after the recent package of Constitutional amendment.
8. Under the circumstances, the attack on validity of Section 7-A of the Act has to be repelled.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the case of Wire Netting Stores Delhi and Another Vs. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner and Others, , in which Delhi High Court has taken a view that Section 7-A suffers from the vice of unreasonableness and,
therefore, is violative of Article 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Commissioner invited our attention to the case of Balasore
Automobile Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1983 L.I.C. 1219 and Sukhchain and Company v. Food Corporation of India
1984 (65) F.J.R. 337, in which validity of Section 7-A has been upheld by Orissa and Punjab and Haryana High Court. In our judgment the ratio
of Organo Chemical (supra) applies to the instant case. Moreover the view taken by Orissa and Punjab and Haryana High Courts commends itself
to us.
10. To conclude, there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
