The principal employer is responsible for depositing EPF contributions for labor employed directly or through a contractor, as per the provisions of the EPF Act and Scheme.

S. S. SARON, J.

1. This order will dispose of above mentioned six writ petitions as they involve identical questions of law and somewhat similar facts.

2. The petitioners in CWPs 16879, 16880 and 16881/2004 are working as handling labour under the respondent No.3 in the said respective petitions who are the contractors of the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and marketing Federation Limited (Markfed - for short), Chandigarh through its M. D. (respondent No.1) and the Branch Manager, markfed Depot, Bhawanigarh (respondent No.2 ). The petitioners in CWPs 19891, 19921 and 20154/2004 are working as handling labour under respondent No.2 in the said respective petitions who are the contractors ot PUNSUP depots at Sangrur, Tapa and Bhawanigarh, respectively. They seek the quashing of the action of the respondents in asking their contractors to obtain its own Code number for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act for short ). The provisions of the Act, it is stated, are applicable to the respondents with whom the petitioners are working as handling labour and the petitioners have been allocated the EPF code numbers, as mentioned in their respective writ petitions. It is stated that the contractor of the respondents - Markfed and PUNSUP keep changing from year to year basis but the labour remains the same and it does not change. The petitioners along with various others are continuously working as labourers and deductions on account of the EPF are being made which is to be deposited with the EPF authorities in the account numbers allotted to the petitioners by the respondent-EPF commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Bhatinda. It is stated that for the last two months, a move had been started by the respondents - Markfed and PUNSUP whereby the contractors are being asked to obtain their own code numbers from the EPF authorities and to deposit the EPF dues of the petitioners and other workers in that code numbers by obtaining individual account numbers for the workers. This is being done despite resistance of the workers. Some workers even approached the Deputy commissioner, Sangrur who, vide communication dated May 18, 2004, directed the Markfed and PUNSUP authorities to follow the earlier procedure regarding deposit of EPF and not to change the prevalent system. However, despite the directions issued by the deputy Commissioner, the Markfed and punsup authorities are insisting upon the contractors to have their own code numbers and make compliance with the provisions of the act. Therefore, the endeavour on the part of the Markfed and the PUNSUP, it is alleged, is to shift the liability of depositing the EPF of the petitioners on the contractors. This, according to the petitioners, would cause grave prejudice to the petitioners. It is stated that the principal employer, which in the present cases, are either the Markfed or the PUNSUP are to comply with the provisions of the Act and their liability cannot be shifted.

3. In the written statements filed by the markfed and the PUNSUP, it is stated that the petitioners are labourers working under the control of their contractors and they have never been engaged by the Markfed or the PUNSUP. The petitioners are never employed by the said agencies. It is stated that under the provisions of the Act, it is the liability of the Markfed and the PUNSUP to ensure that the contractor who has engaged them for the execution of its works, had obtained the code numbers regarding payment of the EPF. As to what type of labour is engaged by the contractor for the execution of the work, it is stated, is not the responsibility of the Markfed or the PUNSUP. In fact, by filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners are trying to get a back door entry for employment either by the Markfed or the punsup.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at present the practice has been that the petitioners who are workin