C.V. Bhadang, J. - (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the impugned orders dated 23/5/2001, 29/10/2003 and 30/8/2010 passed by the authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1972 (Act, for short), where under, a total amount of Rs.7,36,394/- has been levied and demanded from the petitioners towards the provident fund contribution. The said amount comprises of two parts. The first part is in respect of dues of 27 employees on the amount paid as miscellaneous allowances. The total amount under this head is Rs.81,131/-. The second head consists of dues in respect of the transport contractors which amount stands at Rs.6,55,263/-. The order passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority.
(2.) I have heard Shri Bandodkar the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ferreira, the learned counsel for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the record.
(3.) It is submitted by Shri Bandodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had engaged independent transport contractors, as and when required, for transport of the finished goods and on some occasions for procuring the raw material. It is submitted that the employees of the said transport contractors do not come within the ambit of section 2(f) of the Act. It is submitted that the said employees cannot be said to be employed by the petitioners or through a contractor. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer s Society Union, Ltd. Vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2010 11 SCC 537 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Springdales School and Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr., 2006 LLR 47. It is submitted that thus the claim under the second head is totally misconceived. The learned counsel has pointed out that the only ground on which the employees of the transport contractors have been held to be the employees within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Act is that the petitioners have deducted tax at source while making payment to the transport contractors which in the opinion of the learned counsel is not permissible.;