The principal employer under the Employees Provident Funds Act is liable for provident fund contributions, regardless of the claimant’s employment status with a subordinate entity.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Employees provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the learned Tribunal) in ATA No.869 (4)09 under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 wherein the learned tribunal inter alia held that NTPC being the principle employer is liable to pay provident fund contribution to the claimant/workman. The petitioner has assailed this finding that this finding of the learned tribunal as well the finding of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) on the ground that they are contrary to the record and orders of the CGIT passed in ID No.25/2009 titled as Umesh Kumar Mishra vs. General Manager, BTPS.

2. The facts in brief compass are that initially an industrial dispute was raised by the claimant/workman on 11.02.2008 and reference was made by the appropriate authority on 06.02.2009, which is as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of the Badarpur Thermal Power Station, New Delhi in terminating the services of their workman Umesh Kumar Mishra w.e.f January, 2008 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. The NTPC being aggrieved by said reference filed W.P.(C) 8531/2009. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2009. Pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, the Central Government modified and sent the reference dated 20.05.2009 to the learned CGIT for adjudication. The modified reference is as follows:

"Whether the applicant (Umesh Kumar Mishra) is an employee of BTPS or BTPS Club?

Whether the action of management in terminating the services of Umesh Kumar Mishra w.e.f. September 2008 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?"

4. The CGIT on the basis of this reference, returned a finding vide its award dated 07.03.2011, in which, as per the appellant, it was inter alia held that the claimant/workman is an employee of BTPS Club and not the NTPC. However, learned CGIT further held that since the claimant/workman is an employee of the club, the appropriate authority would be the state government and not the central government.

5. Against the award, the claimant/workman filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 7622/2011 before this Court. This court remanded the matter back to the learned CGIT for adjudication of the remaining part of reference i.e. "Whether the action of management in terminating the services of Umesh Kumar Mishra w.e.f. September 2008 is just, fair and legal and the grant of consequential relief". It was also directed that since BTPS Club was held to be the employer and was not represented before the learned CGIT, a notice may be issued to the club for participating in the proceedings before the learned CGIT. These proceedings are still pending before the CGIT.

6. While the matter rested thus, the claimant/workman Umesh Kumar Mishra filed a complaint under Section 14 read with Section 14 (AB) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi. The claimant/workman has also impleaded the club in the said complaint. This complaint came to be disposed of by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.2019, wherein Regional Provident Fund Commissioner inter alia held as under:

Analysing and examining the contents of the submissions of all the parties involved, including that of the complainant and on applic