The principal employer is liable for contributions under the Employees Provident Fund Act even for employees engaged through contractors, with the necessary powers for assessment and beneficiary identification conferred to authorities.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Nag, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. In the present batch of three writ petitions before this Court, the Petitioner has assailed the orders of assessment carried out under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’).

3. The sole ground on which the Petitioner has assailed the respective assessment orders is that without identification of the beneficiaries, the Respondent Authorities could not have carried out the assessment in terms with Section 7A of the Act of 1952.

4. Taking into account that the issues involved in all the three writ petitions are common, this Court takes up all the three writ petitions together for disposal by this common judgment and order.

5. In WP(C) No.7853/2016, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs.1,87,743/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

6. In WP(C) No.2717/2020, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 thereby determining that the Petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.29,771/- in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

7. In WP(C) No.1198/2021, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of Powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs.10,46,976/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

8. The materials on record as well as a perusal of the impugned orders in the three writ petitions clearly show that the Petitioner through certain contractors, the names of such contractors which were disclosed by the Petitioner before the Respondent Authorities, engaged various workers. The names of the contractors and the details of the payment so made admittedly is available with the Respondent Authorities as would be seen from the materials on record. The question which has been urged by the Petitioner in the instant batch of writ petitions is that without identifying the beneficiaries, the Petitioner cannot be burdened with an assessment carried out under Section 7A of the Act of 1952.

9. The answer to the dispute raised in the present batch of writ petitions is available at Paragraph No.30 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short ‘the Scheme of 1952’) whereby a responsibility/obligation is casted upon the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect to the employees directly employed by him and also in respect to employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. Paragraph No.30 of the said Scheme of 1952 being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“30. Payment of contributions.- (1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer’s contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution).

(2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the contractor shall recov