IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Central Pollution Control Board – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 23083 of 2020, Writ (C) No. 9887 of 2021, Writ (C) No. 8898, 29859 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7-A - Financial convenience - Apprentice engaged - Commencement of this Scheme - Registrar of Trade Marks – Held, Court have carefully perused different contracts annexed along with writ petitions which are almost similarly worded that it was duty of contractor to supply guards to principal employers as well as contractor has duty to comply with all conditions of relevant Act and Scheme - Principal employers have power to remove guards in case of any indiscipline or subordination or to ask contractor not to send said worker or guard - There were limited powers with principal employers to remove which may satisfy test of employer-employee relationship to some extent it cannot be denied that manpower was provided by contractor who as per agreement is obligation to deposit share according - Petition Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Above referred four writ petitions having similar issues are being decided by following common judgment.
2. Petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 23083 of 2020 (Central Pollution Control Board); 9887 of 2021 (Pee Cee Cosma Sope Ltd.) and 29859 of 2022 (M/s Institute Of Mental Health And Hospital) are principal employers whereas petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8898 of 2022 (M/s Industrial Security Associates) is a contractor who has provided employees to above referred writ petitioners on contract. Principal employers are aggrieved by common judgment and order dated 13.11.2018 and order dated 30.01.2020 passed under Section 7-A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Act of 1952] whereby appropriate Authority under said Act has fastened liability on petitioners being principal employers as well as on contractor also.
3. The appropriate Authority in the impugned order has referred definition of employees as provided under Section 2-F of said Act of 1952 as well as paragraph 36 (duties of employer) and paragraph 36-b (duties of contractor) of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 [Scheme of 1952] and further held that since principal employers as well as contractor have failed to comply with the statutory provisions of said Act to deposit due, therefore, it was directed to principal employers as well as contractor to deposit their respective contributions. It was further held that principal employers have engaged workers through contractor for their administrative and financial convenience and any financial dispute between these parties will not absolve them from their respective statutory duties. For reference, above referred section and paragraphs are mentioned hereinafter:
(f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of [an establishment] and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer [and includes any person:
(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment.
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment.
Paragraph 36 of Scheme of 1952
36. Duties of employers (1) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner, within fifteen days of the commencement of this Scheme, a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the [basic wage, retaining allowance (if any) and dearness allowance including the cash value of any food concession] paid to each of such employees:
Provided that if there is no employee who is required or entitled to become a member of the Fund, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return.
(2) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the close of each month a return:
(a) in Form 5, of the employees qualifying to become members of the Fund for the first time during the preceding month together with the declarations in Form 2 furnished by such qualifying employees.
(b) [in such form as the Commissioner may specify] of the employees leaving service of the employer during the preceding month:
Provided that if there is no employee qualifying to become a member of the Fund for the first time or there is no employee leaving service of the employer during the preceding month, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return.
(c) Provided further that a copy of the forms as mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) above shall be provided by the employer to concerned employees immediately after joining the service or at the time of leaving the service, as the case may be.
(3) [Omitted]
(4) Every employer shall maintain an inspection note book in such form as the Commissioner may specify, for an Inspector to record his observation on his visit to the establishment.
(5) Every employer shall maintain such acco
Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407
Panther Security Service Private Limited vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and Another
P.M. Patel and Sons vs. Union of India
Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and Another
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others
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 affirmed that a principal employer is entitled to implead sub-contractors in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act 1952 for proper adjudication of provident fund contributions.
The court affirmed that a principal employer is entitled to implead sub-contractors in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act 1952 for proper adjudication of provident fund contributions.
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.
The principal employer retains responsibility for statutory dues for workers employed through contractors, irrespective of contractual arrangements, and appeals regarding statutory matters must be fi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the inclusive definition of an 'employee' under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, covering any person engaged....
Directors can be held liable for non-remittance of provident fund contributions, and late payments do not absolve prior violations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.