Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Food Corporation of India – Petitioner
Versus
Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-12998 of 2018 (O/M)
Decided On : 30-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petitions filed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous orders under challenge for not addressing core issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties' positions regarding epf coverage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. arguments on epf contribution liability. (Para 11 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. discussion on appeal and jurisdictional issues. (Para 19) |
| 6. court's observations on evidential requirements. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. determination of liabilities under epf act. (Para 24 , 25 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. reiteration of procedural fairness and rights of parties. (Para 26) |
| 9. final judgment and orders issued. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Harsh Bunger, J.
This common order shall dispose of three writ petitions, being CWP-7208-2016 titled as "Ranbir Singh Punia and Company and others v. Food Corporation of India and others", CWP-12998-2018 titled as "Food Corporation of India v. Board of Trustees and others" and CWP-23903-2021 titled as " M/s Madan Lal Krishan Lal v. Food Corporation of India and others".
2. In CWP-12998-2018, the prayer made by the petitioner-Food Corporation of India is for quashing of order dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organization of India (respondent No.1 therein), whereby the petitioner has been held to be the principle employer qua the katcha arathias (Commission Agents) in grain market without there being any proceedings for examining the amenability/coverability of the establishment of the said katcha arthias under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the 1952 Act').
3. CWP-7208-2016 has been filed by the Commission Agents seeking quashing of letter dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent No.3 therein) to the extent it was held that the workers engaged in the establishment PUNSUP, PUNGRAIN, MARKFED, PACL, FCI, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation through Commission Agents are covered under the E.P.F. Act. A further prayer has been made in this writ petition seeking issuance of directions to respondents No.1 and 2 (Food Corporation of India) to release the due payments to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% and not to pressurize the petitioners to get themselves registered under the 1952 Act by way of withholding their due payments.
4. In CWP-23903-2021, prayer has been made to restrain respondents No.1 to 3 therein from pressurizing the petitioner to get itself registered under the 1952 Act as the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the said Act. A further prayer has been made seeking issuance of directions to respondents No.1 and 2 therein to release the amount so retained by it from the bills submitted by the petitioner against the purchases made by them through the petitioner.
5. A perusal of the paper books would reveal that CWP-12998-2018 and CWP-7208-2016 came to be decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2020 by holding as under:-
'(1) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 7208 of 2016 and 12998 of 2018 as common issues are involved.
(2) In CWP-7208-2016, the petitioners inter alia, seek quashing of the letter dated 07.08.2015 (P2) issued by respondent No.3 - the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to the extent that the workers engaged in the establishments of PUNSUP, PUNGRAIN, MARKFED, PACL, FCI, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation through commission agents are covered under the EPF Act.
(3) On a pointed question put by this Court as to if the official respondents have issued any directions to the FCI to retain any amount from the payments to be made by the food procurement agencies, counsel for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner submits that there is no direction to retain any amount.
(4) In CWP No.12998 of 2018, the prayer made by the petitioner-FCI is to quash the order dated 18.10.2017 (P3) passed by respondent No.1- Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation whereby
AI
Employers must demonstrate coverability under the EPF Act through proper procedures before incurring liabilities related to employee contributions, supported by clear evidence.
An establishment employing more than 20 workers is covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, and failure to provide sufficient evidence to dispute its applicability leads to dismissal of certi....
The employer must ensure EPF contributions for all employees, including those employed through contractors, and must comply with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
Point of Law : Provident Fund is not a tax. It is an amount collectable to the benefit of an individual identified employee as a social welfare measure.
The court determined that pygmy agents do not qualify as employees under the EPF Act, as there is no employer-employee relationship, thus the Act is not applicable.
The Commissioner must conduct an independent inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles before determining amounts due from employers.
The court established that the Central Board of Trustees has the standing to challenge Tribunal orders and that the assessment of PF contributions must be based on actual wages drawn by employees, no....
The importance of considering evidence and applying the provisions of the Act properly in reaching a decision.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly ensuring that parties are given adequate opportunity to contest findings befor....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
