In the counter affidavit filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) on behalf of all the respondents, it is stated that the employer is a covered establishment under the Act. As the employer failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, enquiry was initiated under Section 7-A of the Act. Though the accountant of the employer appeared in the enquiry, records were not produced on different occasions. Therefore, the dues were assessed as per the records available with the respondents as Rs.12,31,157/- (Rupees twelve lakh thirty one thousand and one hundred and fifty seven only) and proceedings were issued on 04.09.2000. Later, prohibitory order was issued under Section 8 of the Act on 02.11.2000, but still no amount was paid. The recovery officer then issued recovery certificate No.7/2001 dated 03.04.2001 followed by a demand notice dated 24.05.2001, in vain. When the respondent issued another prohibitory order dated 08.04.2002, an amount of Rs.10,528.83/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred twenty eight and paise eighty three only) was paid by the employer. The cheque for an amount of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) was returned by the Bank with endorsement “a/c freezed no operation allowed”. The department thereafter issued a warrant of attachment of movables/immovables on 30.07.2002 but the same could not be executed as the employer informed on 13.09.2002 that the properties of the employer are covered by pari passu charged in favour of financial institutions, namely, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH). The show cause notice dated 24.11.2003 issued to the petitioner was returned with remarks “party out of station” and lastly when the impugned letter was issued asking the petitioner to appear before the second respondent, the petitioner approached this Court.
