JUDGMENT :

S.P. Deshmukh, J.

1. In the Letters Patent Appeal issues are sought to be raised in respect of order' dated 23-11-2011 passed by learned Hon'ble Single Judge in writ petition No. 66 of 2011 and are canvassed with reference to provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as the "EPF & MP Act"].

2. Said writ petition had been preferred by City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO)-respondent No. 1 herein against, order dated 20-09-2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in appeal ATA No. A-413 (9) of 2007, and also, order dated 6-6-2006 passed by Officer Incharge Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, SRO.

3. Questions which were raised on behalf of the CIDCO in the writ petition were:

(a) Whether proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 are bad on account of lack of jurisdiction and authority?

(b) The period from which the demand is made extends from 1980 to 1995, while the provisions of the said Act came to be made applicable to cleaning and sweeping Workers with effect from 01.04.2001.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Niteen K. Chaudhari passionately submits on behalf of the appellants that the EPF & MP Act is a beneficial legislation for welfare and security of employees who generally are from weaker economic section of society. In spite of several efforts, CIDCO had not supplied list of contractors who had carried out activity of cleaning and sweeping in the CIDCO area during material time and in the absence of details been made available, eventually, looking at the balance sheet of CIDCO of relevant period, the EPF authorities had no alternative but to consider 30% as labour component and, as such, amount had been demanded from CIDCO. The EPF Officers had appropriately assessed and levied penalty for breaches and non-compliances.

5. Mr. N.K. Chaudhari puts in lot of efforts in the present matter emphasising actions by EPF authorities and has addressed various aspects and has also referred to several provisions which according to him would show that EPF authorities were within their powers and authority and were bound to take action 'and pass orders and levy charge on CIDCO.

6. Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that putting CIDCO under caption 'building and construction' of schedule and levy of charges therefor, is not in accordance with provisions. In the statute and that EPF authorities had no competence to levy charge. The authorities had not appreciated factual aspects properly. CIDCO had been working at preliminary level during 1980 to December, 1985. While activity of sweeping and cleaning had been carried out by contractors, its record was not supposed to be maintained by CIDCO. It was supposed to be maintained only by contractors. For an activity 15 years before, to expect its record with CIDCO would not be proper. Moreover, the same would not be logical. The details as were sought by EPF authorities', I in the circumstances, could not be provided rather the expectation had not been legitimate. The charges demanded as also method that had been allegedly followed by EPF authorities are incompatible with law.

7. Superceding aforesaid, Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel submits that while CIDCO is a government company, looking at Section 16 of the EPF and MP Act and Section 1(b) thereof, it is not the case of appellant that the case can be said to be covered by Sub-Section 4 of Section 1. Learned counsel has also taken us through the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act"] particularly Section 134 thereof and reads the same with Section 16 of the EPF and MP Act and contends, in view of the same, present Letters Patent Appeal, would tantamount to nothing more than flogging a dead bourse.

8. Learned Single Judge, has referred to the decision in writ petitions No. 1820 of 2003