- (1.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of selling and producing food items such as Petha, Namkin, Dalmoth and Gajak etc. The petitioner-company was granted contract at Agra Cantt. Railway Station by the IRCTC for selling the said products in their brand name Panchchi at the Railway Station in 2009-10. In order to carry out the contract with IRCTC, the petitioner entered into a contract with fifth and sixth respondent respectively under the Contract Labours Regulation and Abolition Act 1970 for supply of labours to sell the products at the railway station. The first respondent, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Agra issued notice to the petitioner and the third respondent, Divisional Railway Manager, N.C.R., Agra Cantt. Agra under Section 7-A and 7-A(B) of the Act, 1952 for verification of the records for the period April 2006 to March 2014. The petitioner made an application to implead the contractors fourth and fifth respondents to the proceedings contending therein that they are not aware of the workmen supplied by the contractors, they are neither the principal employer, the liability, if any, of the statutory funds is of the contractor who had employed the workmen. The identity of the workers/employees are also not known to the petitioner. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 26 August 2008 and 3 September 2009 rejected the application on the plea that in the agreement so produced and relied upon by the petitioner company does not indicate as to whether the contractor was registered under the Employees Provident Fund Act.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contractor is a necessary party and it is the contractor who could produce the record and identify the workers employed by them during the said period. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon N.T.P. Corporation Ltd. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another and Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and others, 1990 1 SCC 68.
(3.) Sri Sachindra Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage as the statutory dues of large number of employees are to be determined under 7-A.;