The court established that the policy decision of respondent No. 1 Corporation was unreasonable and against the instructions issued by the Government of India, and upheld the legality of the instructions prohibiting the issuance of separate E.P.F. Code Numbers to contractors.

Kamlesh Sharma, J.:- The petitioners are working as contractors in District Kullu. In this writ petition they have prayed, inter alia, for quashing the circulars Annexures P-5 and P-6 issued by respondent No. 1 and for issuing direction to it to award contracts to the petitioners and similarly situated contractors without furnishing Employees Provident Fund Code Number (hereinafter called the E.P.F. Code Number).

2. Respondent No. 1 National Hydro Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) is Government of India Undertaking, which is assigned the work of execution of Parbati Hydro Electric Project, Bhuntar, Tehsil and District Kullu, which is joint venture of Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh. It has issued the impugned circular dated 18.9.1988 Annexure P-5 advising all the contractors to get E.P.F. Code Number from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimla (HP). Similarly, Manager (C), Incharge (P&A) Wing, Parbati Hydro Electric Project, Bhuntar has forwarded letter dated 7.5.1999 of the Corporate Office for compliance and to ensure following guidelines vide his impugned letter dated 19.5.1999 Annexure P-6:- "No contract/work order is to be awarded to any contractor/party unless the contractor/party furnishes the Provident Fund Code Number allotted to him for his workmen by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and who have obtained licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970."

3. In compliance, vide his letter dated 1.1.2000 Annexure P-7 the Senior Manager (Mech), Contract & Procurement, Parbati Hydro electric Project, Bhuntar, District Kullu has asked petitioners No.5 to submit the documents relating to E.P.F. Code Number latest by 11.1.2000, on receipt of which he would be called for negotiations for the reduction in rates/amount in respect of his tender for package No.20 pertaining to construction of Breast-Wall on Garasa Sheelagarh Road, as he was the lowest tenderer. The notices inviting tenders Annexures P-3 and P-4, contain one of the conditions that tenders must accompany E.P.F. Code Number or its exemption from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner besides other documents.

4. On the other hand, respondent No.2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kasumpti, Shimla who was initially issuing the E.P.F. Code Numbers to the contractors, has stopped this practice in pursuance to letter dated 3.7.1998 Annexure P-1 written by Central Provident Fund Commissioner to all the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners directing them to stop the practice of allotting separate E.P.F. Code Numbers to the contractors following the directions issued in the letter Annexure P-l the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimla has written letter dated 28.9.1999 Annexure P-2 whereby request for issue of E.P.F. Code Number of one of the contractors, namely, Bir Singh has been rejected on the ground that he was working for respondent No. 1 Corporation, which is already covered under the employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and he was directed to comply with the provisions of the said Act through his principal employer i.e. respondent No. 1 Corporation.

5. The petitioners have assailed the decision of respondent No. 1 contained in Annexures P-5 and P-6 that no contract/work will be awarded to any contractor unless he furnishes the E.P.F. Code Number allotted to him by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on the grounds that it is wrong, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution as well as the provisions of the Act and the employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter called the Scheme) and instructions in the letter Annexure P-l issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner on the basis of letter dated 18.5.1998 by the Government of India, as respondent No. 1 Corporation being Government of India undertaking cannot work against the mandate and instructions of the Central Government. According to the