The petitioner was entitled to parity of treatment as laid down in S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd. v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. (2001 (2) SCC 612) and such parity of treatment was denied by the Authority.

Subrata Talukdar, J.

In this writ petition challenge is thrown to the determination of provident fund contribution qua the petitioner-firm under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the PF Act) by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal by order dated 10th October, 2000 for the period between June 1977 to February, 1989.

2. The petitioner-firm carries on business of marketing branded packed Beedi under the trade name Chhabi Beedi. The petitioner purchases beedis from unbranded beedi manufacturers and thereafter the beedis are packed and labelled in its industrial premises.

3. As pleaded at paragraph 4 of the writ petition the petitioner claims to employ a workforce not exceeding 20 in number. Till 31st March, 1990 the petitioner claims to have been a partnership firm comprised of the family of the Saraogis and from 1st April, 1990 one, Pawan Kumar Saraogi claims to be the sole proprietor of the petitioner-firm upon the dissolution of the erstwhile partnership firm on 31st March, 1990.

4. The petitioner claims to be protected from the purview of the PF Act on the ground that the hand rolled unbranded beedis were purchased from independent beedi contractors and at all material times the regular employees of the petitioner were less than 20 thereby making the provisions of the PF Act inapplicable. However, the PF Inspector visited the factory premises of the petitioner in October, 1987 and again in March, 1989 whereupon on 30th March, 1989 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal initiated 12 proceedings under Section 7A of the PF Act, 1952 covering the period 1st June, 1977 up to February, 1989.

5. Sri Saptangshu Basu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Pinaki Chandra Motilal, Ld. Counsel submits that the issue of coverage of unbranded beedi home workers under the PF Act by treating such worker as an employee under the principal employer has been noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a batch of writ petitions being M/s. P.M. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 447.

6. It is pointed out that the applicability of the PF Act to beedi home workers for the period June, 1977 to September, 1985, the latter being the month of delivery of the judgment. In Re: M/s. P.M. Patel stood excluded for the said period in view of the general order of stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to beedi manufacturers.

7. Sri Basu argues that due to the deaths and illness of the senior partners of the erstwhile partnership firm, the present petitioner was utterly handicapped in the matter of presenting accounts and documents before the PF Authorities. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner complains of arbitrariness in passing the order impugned dated 10th October, 1990 since the petitioner received no opportunity of presenting the complete facts before the competent Authority. Sri Basu further argues that independent contractors who sold the hand rolled beedis to the petitioner ought to have been summoned to appear in the 7A proceedings in order to determine the employment status of the beedi home workers.

8. Since the beedi home workers worked under the independent contractors and the identity of such home workers was not known to the petitioner, in the absence of the independent contractors in the 7A proceedings, the competent Authority cannot determine the extent of their coverage under the PF Act. Sri Basu further complains of the fact that the competent Authority passed the impugned order of demand merely on the basis of spot survey by the inspectors when, it was necessary in a quasi-judicial proceeding to summon the independent contractors and record evidence connected to the home workers attached to such contractors.

9. In any view of the matter since the home workers were not identified, the competent Authority could not have assumed a master-servant relationship between the petitioner and such home workers