The principal employer retains responsibility for statutory dues for workers employed through contractors, irrespective of contractual arrangements, and appeals regarding statutory matters must be filed within prescribed time limits, with failure rendering them non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay J.

1. The petitioners are led by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a Government of India undertaking governed by Central Rules and Regulations. The orders and consequential demand notices to have been issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Assessing Officer under Section 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952, the proceedings emanating from all default in respect of provident fund contribution pertaining to the contractor respondent No.2 being M/s. Reju Enterprise for the period culminating in June, 2019 are not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Assessing Officer in proceeding under Section 14B being Diary No. 31/2022 holding respondent No.2 to be liable to pay the contributions for the period from 01/2019 to 06/2019 amounting to Rs. 5,02,860/-. Vide demand notice dated 30.03.2023 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Assessing Officer under the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay for the period as aforesaid amounting to Rs. 1,95,076/- only both the aforesaid demand notices were received at the office of the petitioner on 10.04.2023.

2. A Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 03.05.2023 was issued under Section 8 of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 by the Assessing Officer asked the Recovery Officer to recover the sum of Rs. 6,97,936/- from the respondent No.2.

3. It had been the consistent case of the petitioners that till 2018, there had been no delay whatsoever in clearing the contractor’s bills and all statutory payments stood duly discharged. Any penalty if at all for that period arose solely from the contractor’s own failure to comply with statutory formalities and could not in equity or in law be thrust upon the principal employer.

4. The narrative thereafter must be viewed against the backdrop of great financial stress faced by BSNL during 2019, followed closely by the unprecedented disruption occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even during this turbulent phase, the petitioners asserted that the primary cause for delay in bill clearance laid in the repeated failure of M/s. Reju Enterprise to submit complete bills with mandatory statutory documents relating to EPF/ESI/GST and challans. It was specifically stated that bills for June, 2019 were submitted as late as October, 2020 and were nevertheless paid by BSNL.

5. A crucial and undisputed fact emerged from the record that the contractual employment the respondent No.2/ M/s. Raju Enterprise stood terminated with effect from July, 2019. At the request of the contractor himself. This position was fortified by correspondence wherein the proprietor of the contractor expressed inability to continue the work, owing to prolonged illness following COVID-19 and further stated his incapacity to submit bills beyond July, 2019. It was thus emphatically asserted that no contractual relationship subsisted thereafter.

6. Despite this, Orders dated 30th March, 2023, were passed under Section 14 B of the aforesaid Act holding BSNL liable for damages, coupled with demand notices under Section 7Q of the aforesaid Act followed by revenue recovery certificate and a fresh demand notice dated 4th July, 2023 for a consolidated sum of Rs.6,97,936/-. The petitioners contended the authorities failed to consider the fact of termination of the contract, the admitted payment of all bills up to June-July, 2019 and the fact that BS