- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) In the instant case the petitioners being a Beedi manufacturing Company and running the business of selling such manufactured Beedi by engaging Home-workers through Contractors, have assailed the determination of the liability under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the interest, being a statutory interest, as fixed under Section 7Q of the said Act by mainly contending, inter alia, that there was on final determination by identifying the Home-workers engaged by different Contractors save and except identification of few Home-workers engaged by some Contractors, that by the impugned decision the identification of the other Home-workers since has been kept open which vitiated the order impugned as the order has taken the shape of interim direction, not a final determination of the liability of the petitioners in terms of Section 7A of the said Act so far as contribution of the Provident Fund amount, that the petitioners Company never engaged any Home-workers who are practically rolling the Beedi leaves and those Beedi workers were engaged by the Contractor with whom the petitioners Company had relationship only and accordingly the Company is not liable to pay the Provident Fund amount in respect of the employees share as well as the employer's share. The last point is argued that since the impugned decision is a combined order under Section 7A read with Section 7Q of the aid Act directing imposition of interest on the assessed amount under Section 7A of the said Act, there is no alternative remedy of preferring an appeal to a Tribunal under Section 7-I of the said Act in relation to any fixation of interest under Section 7Q of the said Act.
(3.) This writ application has been opposed by the respondents by filing Affidavit-in-opposition and contending, inter alia, that the Home-workers who are practically rolling the Beedi leaves by putting tobacco materials inside such leaves, though are engaged by the Contractors but the writ petitioners Company is the principal employer in terms of the provisions of the statute and the petitioners Company cannot wash out the responsibility to pay the Provident Fund money, which is out come of deep rooted social justice concept, to benefit the workers concerned. It has been further contended that on the basis of identification of the Home-workers by the Contractor who deposed in the proceeding and the names of those Home- workers who were accepted by the present writ petitioners Company the liability of payment of Provident Fund money was identified and accordingly the amount was assessed and there is no scope of the argument of the writ petitioners Company that unidentified Home-workers also have been tagged in the impugned decisions. So far as the nature of the impugned order is concerned as canvassed by the writ petitioners Company by contending, inter alia, that the order was a composite order under Section 7A read with Section 7Q of the said Act, it has been contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the order under Section 7Q of the said Act has no determining factor as it is a statutory determination fixing the fixed liability of payment of interest under statute and there is no question of any person being aggrieved by such interest fixing if the principal amount as liable to be paid under Section 7A of the said Act is finally determined and assessed. In that view of the matter, in the statute no provision has been made for preferring an appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act with reference to the amount of interest as determined under Section 7Q of the said Act. It has been further urged that there is alternative forum of preferring the statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act and the writ petition is not maintainable.;