The obligation of the employer to contribute to the Employees Provident Fund is not dependent on the willingness of the employees to waive their contributions.

1. Challenge in this petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 6/8/2018, P/2 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow (for brevity CGIT) in appeal No. 64/2018 dismissing the appeal in question of the employer-petitioner herein and in the process confirming the order dated 17/11/2005 by which Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Gwalior determined an amount of Rs. 61,8802/-as due against the petitioner-employer.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily submits that though there is no dispute over the quantum of dues determined by the EPF Organization since the assessment has been made based on records of the establishment but it is submitted that all the employees of the petitioner-establishment have applied for waiver of their amount for contribution and thus no amount as assessed is due u/S. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity the 1952 Act).

4. It is seen from the record that the petitioner-establishment had raised the aforesaid plea before the Assessing Officer which was negatived vide P/1 by relying upon the decision of this Court in Solanki Workshop Vs. RPFC [1963 (I) LLJ 613] where it was held that 1952 Act does not recognize waiver by the employees for exempting the establishment from the rigors of the 1952 Act. It was held that liability of the employer/establishment does not depend upon the willingness of the concerned employees. Para 30 of the EPF Scheme makes it obligatory upon the employer to contribute both the shares namely his own and employee's without any exception.

5. The appellate forum, i.e., CGIT, Lucknow bench vide P/2 has reiterated this view after further placing reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court in 1982 (44) Satish Plastics Vs. RPFC FLR page, 207 and 2018 LLR, RPFC vs M/s Nijjor Ago Foods page 95.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any contrary view that is taken by any judicial authority than the one which was relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund and as well as appellate authority, CGIT, Lucknow while rendering a finding against petitioner/establishment/employer.

7. This court sees no reason to interfere as the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization and appellate authority appear to be passed in accordance with law without transgressing any of it's jurisdictional purviews.

8. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to cost.