The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 did not apply to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation as it was not constituted under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, as mentioned in the notification.

Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

1. The petitioners have primarily challenged the notification, dated January 8, 2011, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment applying the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act, for short) to the municipal councils and municipal corporations constituted under Article 243Q (1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and employing 20 or more persons. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

2. The principal thrust of the petitioners is that till the publication of the notification the Act was not applicable to Kolkata Municipal Corporation (the Corporation, for short) in view of Section 16 of the Act. Section 14 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 provides for certain officers with statutory designations. The Corporation maintains a schedule of posts which includes the designation and number of posts under each designation of officers and employees constituting the establishment of the Corporation. The Corporation mainly discharges civic services to the municipal area of Kolkata including supply of water, sewerage and drainage, solid waste management, construction and maintenance of streets, so on and so forth. It also discharges other duties as provided in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in view of the continuous upward growth in urban population resulting in greater demand for providing civic services, the Corporation is required to utilize the services of persons on the basis of contingent/casual/temporary/ piece rate/daily rate/contract by or through the contractor or sub-contractor or any other such employer either severally or perennially in the public interest. This the petitioners have to do for rendering appropriate civic services in the interests of public. The employees who are not covered by or under the establishment of the Corporation are paid as per the terms and conditions of their engagement.

4. The Corporation has its own General Provident Fund regulations applicable to the employees and officers of the establishment. Therefore, the provisions of the Act and as well as the scheme framed thereunder are not applicable to the Corporation.

5. The Employees’ Provident Fund authorities initiated two proceedings under Section 7A of the Act against the Corporation for determination of amount of money allegedly due from the employer towards the provident fund. They on an earlier occasion also initiated such a proceeding in respect of the employees engaged through the security agencies in different departments of the KMC. The security agencies filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court alleging that the amount towards provident fund for such workers was to be paid by the Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Municipal Commissioner to give a hearing to the petitioners and to take a decision on the issue of enhancement of the rate of remuneration. It was, however, observed that for the persons engaged by KMC it is under no obligation to deposit any contribution under the Act as the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it.

6. The further contention of the petitioners is that if the said proceeding for determination of the dues is not against the establishment of the KMC but against the security agencies, the provident fund authorities cannot enquire many things pertaining to the employees of the security agencies at this long distance of time. The KMC very reasonably do not maintain or preserve records relating to engagement of such persons for years together. On December 3, 2015, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice requiring the municipal commissioner to appear before him for a hearing to determine the provident fund and allied dues for the period from August 2011 to November 2014 in respect of the employees and workers engaged on contract basis under cert