I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) The law is this. Under Section 2 (f) (i) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,(the Act) read with Sections 1(3) (a) and (b), 2 (e) and 6 thereof, an employer, who gets his work done through contract labour, is liable to pay the provident fund dues of the employees of his contractor. There is no dispute that the writ petitioners (the writ petitioner) got their work done by entering into contracts with various contractors, which in the particular trade in which the writ petitioner is engaged, are known as "job workers". On 3rd April, 1998 and 6th April, 1998 summons were issued to them by the Provident Fund Authority under Section 7A of the said Act, to show cause why they should not pay the Provident Fund dues of their contractors.
(2.) The writ petitioner argued, through Mr. Sarkar, learned senior Advocate that their contractors were independent and were not subject to their supervision or control.
(3.) Amongst other points they argued that the work entrusted to the job workers was not done exclusively for them by those persons or organisations. They worked for many employers. Therefore, how could the writ petitioner be responsible for the Provident Fund dues of the employees of a contractor who had multiple employers? In fact this point never arose in the decisions cited before me and appears to be very novel. Secondly, it was submitted that even if it is assumed that an employer is liable for the provident fund dues of the contractor, in that event, the employer cannot be liable for the entire provident fund liability. The work a contractor was doing for a particular employer in proportion to the entire work he was doing on job work for all his employers had to be determined. A particular employer can be liable in wages in respect of that proportion of the work done by the employees of the contractor. Furthermore, the exact number of employees of the contractor had to be ascertained.;