JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

This writ petition is against the order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 24.2.2010 in A.T.A.No.418(10)2006 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case as has been pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition is that Head Works Division, Rengali Irrigation Project, Samal, Angul comes under the controller of the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, which is a division under the Water Resources Department, Government of Orissa having permanent regular employees, temporary regular employees as well as work charged employees besides NMR/Casual employees. NMR employees are employed by the petitioner establishment according to the workload of the Division.

In order to regulate the service condition of the work charged employees rules have been framed but no rule has been framed governing service condition of NMR employees. A notice under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been issued by the Regional Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1952”) directing the petitioner-establishment to show cause as to why legal action should not be initiated against the petitioner-establishment for contravening the provisions of the Act for not depositing the EPF dues for the NMR employees of the division for the period from 11/1981 to 4/1996.

The petitioner in terms of the show cause notice had appeared before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and submitted reply stating therein that the provisions of the Act, 1952 is not applicable to the NMR/casual employees of the petitioner-establishment because there was no notification to bring the establishment/Division of the Executive Engineer within the ambit of the Act as required under section 1(3) of the Act, 1952.

It has been contended that that their daily wages workers are getting fixed amount as contemplated under the act, but the opposite party no.1 without considering the point raised, has adjudicated applicability of the Act bringing the petitioner-establishment within the purview of the act with a direction to pay contribution amount on different heads vide order dated 4.6.1996, accordingly notice of demand was issued on 7.8.1996 demanding amount of Rs.24,43,107/-.

3. The State Government being aggrieved filed writ petition before this Court being O.J.C. No.14326 of 1997 and this Court vide order dated 20.12.1999 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to prefer an appeal under section 7A of the Act, 1952, petitioner had preferred appeal bearing No.ATA/189(10) of 2000 before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the Appellate Tribunal decided the case vide order dated 14.12.2000 and the Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter before the original authority to determine the dues as per the guideline. In view thereof the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated a fresh proceeding on the premises that the Act is applicable and amount to be paid was only to be calculated and thereafter final order was passed calculating the dues. Petitioner again approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.13739 of 2003 challenging the order dated 14.12.2000 and the notice dated 15.4.2002 but again this Court has given liberty to the petitioner-establishment to file appeal before the Appellate Forum as provided under section 7(1) of the Act and accordingly appeal was preferred which was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2010 which is challenged in this writ petition.

4. Ground taken by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority is that the Act, 1952 is not applicable and the establishment is not coming under the purview of the EPF Act, there is no notification as required under section 1(3) of the Act, 1952, as such it was contended before the Appellate Authority that when applicability of the Act itself was disputed petitioner-establishment is not liable to deposit statutory amount, hence not committed an