The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly ensuring that parties are given adequate opportunity to contest findings before liability is imposed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a group of 8 Writ Petitions. They are finally decided by this common judgment. Petitioners in all Petitions are Municipal Councils / Corporations, public bodies and an arm of the State Government of Maharashtra. Facts are identical, rather almost identical in all cases, save and except certain consequential actions after passing of the impugned orders which shall be referred to separately with respect to each of the Petitioners.

2. For the sake of brevity, facts in Writ Petition No.15200 of 2023 are considered for the purpose of adjudicating the lis. Lis is that assessment is determined under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the said Act”) on the premise that Petitioner is considered to be principal employer liable for deposit of Provident Fund (for short “PF”) contribution / statutory contribution in respect of workers employed by the Contractors appointed by Petitioner. For the purpose of undertaking various works, Petitioner appoints Contractors and/or Sub-Contractors. It needs to be clarified at this stage that in respect of Petitioner’s employees, Petitioner regularly deposits their statutory PF contribution. In the present cases, Contractors and Sub-Contractors employ and appoint workers to complete and execute various work contracts . It is alleged by Respondent that PF contribution / statutory deposit in respect of these workers are not deposited and therefore Petitioner being principal employer is held to be liable. Similar is the case in all 8 Writ Petitions.

3. Facts in Writ Petition No.15200 of 2023 are delineated for reference as follows:-

3.1. Writ Petition No.15200 of 2023 is filed taking exception to two orders passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Vashi in statutory proceedings under the said Act. First order dated 31.03.2023 is passed under Section 7A whereas second order dated 26.09.2023 is passed under Section 8F of the said Act.

3.2. Petitioner is Matheran Municipal Council. Period for which assessment is levied is from 08.01.2011 to 31.03.2017 and final liability of Rs Rs.4,87,50,071/- is assessed as due and payable under Section 7A of the said Act towards payment of outstanding Provident Fund contribution dues.

3.3. Briefly stated, liability imposed on Petitioner – Matheran Municipal Council is for non-payment of outstanding contribution of PF dues of workers employed by Contractors appointed for carrying out various works including purchase of various materials, printing, stationary, water supply, vehicle repairs, hire of vehicles on rent etc.

3.4. Petitioner would contend that details of each Contractor appointed by Petitioner are furnished to Respondent alongwith their separate PF Codes Numbers pursuant to summons for enquiry. Hence, liability, if any, is that of the concerned Contractor and not of Petitioner. This is the defence of the Petitioner.

3.5. It is seen that on 21.01.2020, before the onset of Covid-19 pandemic period, summons for enquiry was issued calling upon Petitioner to furnish information regarding payment of PF contribution for the period 2011 to 2017. Petitioner would contend that during Covid-19 period it was practically impossible to furnish details of Contractors who were appointed during the aforesaid period and provide all such relevant necessary details for adjudication due to limited staff strength. However despite this, all requisite information as available was furnished to the Enforcement Officer during enquiry.

3.6. At the outset, Ms. Kanani, learned Advocate for Petitioner has straight away drawn my attention to the names and details of Contractors which find mention in the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 7A of the said Act itself. On a headcount it is seen that Petitioner has furnished details of 89 Contractors who carried out work for Petitioner during the said period and in lieu of work contractual payments were released to them. It is seen that these C