Pending the procedure for the protection of the investigation, the petitioner and his collaborators requested, on 06.03.2006, the withdrawal of the coverage provided for by law and the abolition of the procedure initiated by law against the petitioner. The application in question was not accepted by the ETH authorities and was the subject of an order pursuant to Article 7Q of the Act and Article 14-B of the Act, which provided for damages for the late filing of the contribution as well as the implementing order provided for in Section 8-F of the Act. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court, Madras. The petitioner testified before the High Court: the petitioner appealed to the Madras High Court in the case « Sampath Kumaran and Co., V. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in which the High Court found that a company employing only four workers was voluntarily subject to an application under section 1(4) by law, later, when the employer was reconstituted as a partnership, the employer and the employees applied for exemption from liability under the Act. The High Court ruled that, notwithstanding the establishment of the employer of an owner to a partnership, a majority of workers wishing to resign from liability under the law with the employer are required by the authorities to release it. Under article 21 of the General Clauses Act, a person or group of persons who can act for their benefits, but who is at the same time subject to obligations, would at any time be able to seek exemption from the obligations arising from their voluntary mandate, again unambiguously expressing their wish to no longer be burdened with such commitments A: VPF is the extension of the EPF. On an EPF account, a person must give 12% of his base salary and his Dearness Allowance to the Fund. In a PPF, this is a voluntary contribution capped at 100%. At the request of employers, EPFO authorises the coverage of these companies.
Workers in these undertakings are covered by the schemes after the approval of these proposals has been communicated. Dry. 1(4) of the Law provides that, where it appears to the representative of the Central Provident Fund, on request, on that behalf or by other means, that the employer and the majority of the employees have agreed, in respect of an undertaking, that the provisions of this Law should apply to the undertaking, he may, by means of communication to the Official Journal, apply the provisions of this Act to such establishment from the date of such agreement or from the date of such agreement in this Agreement. Thus, Article 1(4) provides for a voluntary possibility of making the law applicable. Article 1(5) of the Law provides that an establishment to which that law applies remains subject to that law, notwithstanding that the number of persons working there falls at any time below twenty. . . .