AMIYA KUMAR KUNDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is at the instance of the 18 writ Petitioners who were carrying on the business as contractors for the purpose of executing various types of civil; mechanical, constructional and maintenance works etc. by way of supplying of labourers under the various companies and firms under their respective trade names and praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the provisions of Sec. 2(f) and Sec. 8A of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Act, 1952, and the provisions under para. 36 of the Scheme framed thereunder are ultra vires the Constitution. They have also challenged the order as contained in the letter No. R -EX/716/NB/447/756 dated February 18, 1984, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as contained in the letter dated June 4, 1984, copy of which is Annex. 'H' to the writ petition, and prayed for an order of injunction restraining the Respondents concerned from deducting any sum on account of the provident fund from the bills of the Petitioner pending payment by the company concerned as also for a mandatory order of injunction directing M/s. Dunlop Company to release and/or disburse and/or make payment of all sums due and payable by them to the Petitioners' firm in respect of the bills submitted by the Petitioners in connection with the various work orders executed by the Petitioners' firm within such time as the Court may fix.

(2.) It is stated in detail that the Petitioners' business is independent and irrespective of the business of the Respondent company and, for all practical purposes, the application of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act does not arise.

(3.) The writ petition was moved and the Petitioner obtained a Rule nisi on July 24, 1984. The Rule is opposed by the Provident Fund Authorities and also by the Dunlop India Ltd. On behalf of the Respondent No. 4, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it is placed on record that on investigation it was found that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd., Respondent No. 6, which is an exempted establishment of the region, did not extend the provident benefits to the contractors' employees and consequently the establishment was directed to extend the provident fund benefit to the contractors' employees with retrospective effect. The said establishment prayed for a separate code number for compliance under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed thereunder, in respect of all the employees of the contractors.