IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be applicable even in respect of home workers engaged through contractors in rolling beedis.

Headnote:(i) Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952-Applicability-Home workers engaged through contractors-Whether the Act is applicable in respect of beedi rollers engaged through contractors?-(Yes)-Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works case, AIR 1974 SC 1832; P.M. Patel s case, AIR 1987 SC 447 : Relied on. (Para 5)
       (ii) Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952-Section 7A-Applicability of the Act to any class of employees is not determined or decided by any proceeding u/s 7A of the Act but under the provisions of the Act itself-Manufacturer of beedis-Home workers employed through contractors for manufacture of beedis-Notice to deposit contribution towards provident fund-Challenged on ground that the Act has no application in respect of home workers engaged in rolling beedis engaged through independent contractors-Stay order-Writ petition dismissed on 27-7-1989 holding that provisions of the Act are applicable to such home workers-Coverage was indicated to appellant manufacturer in Jan. 1977-Appellant cannot rely upon his own laches in not deducting wages from 1985 and for subsequent period to enable him to make employees s contribution to the fund.
       Held : Inasmuch as the appellant is protected for the period of coverage by the general stay order given by this Court on the applicability of the Act to the industry in question till the date of the final judgment otherwise steps would have been taken in terms of the formal notice issued to the appellant in 1977 itself. Thus in respect of period from June 1977 to September 1985 there was waiver of the liability by reason of the clarification issued by the Government under para 78 of the Scheme. On the disposal of the matter by this Court in September 1985 the liability to deposit the employees contribution became very clear. Though in law respondents were entitled to recover even for the period from June 1977 in view of the directions issued by the Government but that was not demanded. For period upto September 1985 and for subsequent period there is no manner of doubt and the dispute raised by the appellant cannot be stated to be bona fide at all. In the circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the appellant can rely upon his own laches in not deducting the wages from 1985 onwards to enable him to make employees contribution to the fund. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellant before us is a manufacturer of beedis. He challenged an order made by the respondents under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ]. The appellant had not deducted from the wages of the home workers employed through contractors for manufacture of beedis because of pendency of litigation in order to contribute towards the provident fund on the ground that the Act would not be applicable in cases of such employees. Earlier on the receipt of a notice under the Act from the respondents the appellant challenged the notice in the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988 on the ground that the Act has no application in respect of home workers engaged in rolling the beedis engaged through independent contractors. An interim stay had been granted by the court during the pendency of the proceeding. By an order made on July 27, 1989 the said writ petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of the Act are applicable in respect of home workers engaged in rolling the beedis of the petitioner s establishment through contractors. This decision was questioned before this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10538 of 1989. In the meanwhile, the Provident Fund Commissioner determined the amount due from the appellant and called upon it to deposit a sum of Rs. 66,84,930.50 being employer s and employees contribution towards the provident fund from July 1977 to August 1986. By another order made on December 18, 1989 the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 28,72,383.85 within stipulated time. These demands were also challenged in two writ petitions, C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. 1115 of 1990. This Court by an order made on August 22, 1989 disposed of S.L.P.(C) No. 10538 of 1989 observing that the question involved in the matter could be heard and decided in the proceedings pending before the High Court. The two writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. 1115 of 1990 came to be dismissed on August 19, 1992. A sum of Rs.46,90,051 out of a total demand of Rs.95,57,314.35 was realised by the Provident Fund Commissioner. When the order made by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. 1115 of 1990 was questioned in Special Leave. Petitions (C) Nos. 15312-13 of 1992 filed in this Court, the same were dismissed on May 3, 1993 by stating as follows :-

"The SLPs are dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to collect the names of the Bidi workers who work for them through their contractors and furnish the names of all the workers to the Provident Fund Commissioner. The Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter will verify these names and calculate the liability of the petitioner on the basis of such verification. If any excess amount is found due from the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will recover such amount from the petitioner, on the other hand, if any amount is found due to the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will refund the same. The petitioner to furnish names of the workers, as above within six months from today."

Thereafter the appellant furnished the particulars of home workers stated to be engaged by the contractors to the best of information available with the appellant for final determination of its liability under Section 7-A of the Act as noticed by this Court. A claim was made by the appellant for waiver from payment of employees contribution for the period from October 1985 to May 3, 1993 on the ground that he had not been able to collect the same. But the said claim was disallowed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a certificate for recovery of the outstanding liability of Rs.46,17,538.20 through the Recovery Officer, Bihar. This action of the respondent was called in question before the High Court. Three contentions were raised before the High Court, vis-a-vis :

(i) In the circumstances

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 163

IMPORTANT POINTThe provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be applicable even in respect of home workers engaged through contractors in rolling beedis.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be applicable even in respect of home workers engaged through contractors in rolling beedis.