Point of Law : Provident Fund is not a tax. It is an amount collectable to the benefit of an individual identified employee as a social welfare measure.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

“a. setting aside the impugned order dated 27th November 2014 passed by Shri R.L. Koli, Ld. Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Appeal i.e. ATA No. 927 (4)2014 “M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. V/s RPFC Delhi.

b. Pass any further order/relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the present facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The challenge in the instant petition is to an order dated November 27, 2014 passed by the learned Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’, hereinafter) whereby it quashed/set aside the order dated August 29, 2014 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (‘RPFC’, for short and ‘Adjudicating Authority’, hereinafter) under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’, hereinafter), whereby the respondent No.1 herein was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.108,67,37,263/- towards Provident Fund (‘PF’, for short) contribution.

3. The respondent company is an Establishment covered under the provisions of the EPF Act, and has been allotted the code number DL/15284, and has 14 other sub-codes, for administrative purposes. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Department’) received a letter dated March 09, 2011 and an inspection report of the sub-regional office, Varanasi from the office of the ACC (DL & UK) regarding evasion of dues in compliance of the provisions of EPF Act by contractors of the respondent Establishment. In the report received from the Sub-Regional Office, Varanasi, it was stated that 48 workers working for the Establishment at D-Plant Anpara, Sonbhadra site were not receiving PF benefits, along with a list of such employees, duly signed by the Time Keeper. Accordingly, an inspection squad headed by an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was constituted by the Department to verify and ensure compliance by the Establishment. Based on their inspection of the records produced by the Establishment, the squad reported that PF benefits had not been extended by the Establishment to all eligible employees. Thereafter, the Establishment was directed by the squad to enroll all these employees since the date of their joining and report compliance to RPFC-Delhi. However the Establishment failed to do so. Thereafter, another letter, received from the Sub-Regional Office, Varanasi, along with the report of the inspection squad, stated that there was evasion of PF dues in respect of 487 employees, working in different projects/ sites of the Establishment.

4. Subsequently, a notice under Section 7A of the EPF Act was issued to the Establishment for the period from April 2008 to March 2012 vide summons dated December 03. 2012, with a direction to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on December 17, 2012 along with documents required for consideration such as attendance registers, membership eligibility registers, cash book/ ledger and vouchers, payment registers/pay bills, and any other documents necessary for ascertaining attendance, payments etc. The Establishment filed its reply dated September 13, 2013 to the notice issued under Section 7A of the EPF Act and to the inspection report dated June 21, 2013, denying the allegations levelled by the Department. The Department then filed a deposition report dated July 09, 2014 with summarised information on the sub-contractors who were separately covered and not covered under the EPF Act. In the report, it was specifically stated that the books of accounts and balance sheet of the respondent were being maintained centrally in the corporate office for all projects. The Establishment has engaged a large number of contractors for different projects all over India, of which, only 8% to 10% were independently covered under the Act whereas the remaining were not covered and no PF code/nu