DR.S.CHAKARBARTI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated November 18, 2016, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Assessing Authority), i.e. the respondent no. 2 under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act, for short). By the said order the respondent authority has assessed Rs. 2,62,91,376/- as the provident fund dues payable by the petitioner for the period from February 1998 to May 1999.
(2.) The petitioner received a summons dated June 30, 1999. In response thereto the petitioner made a written representation specifically taking a point therein that the proceeding was liable to be dropped and till such time it was not done a full fledged enquiry had to be conducted to find out the actual arrangement between the respondent and the outside agencies or principals and the process including that carried out by the principals and their employees in their respective establishments while performing their obligations under the arrangement to appreciate the actual relationship between the respondent and the principals. The petitioner also pleaded for identification of these employees of the contractors or principals.
(3.) The primary contention of the petitioner all through has been that the employees of the contractors to whom the specific work has been assigned can never be considered to be their employees and if any assessment is to be made the number of such employees have to be identified. It cannot be made in the vacuuo.;