- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 6. 8,81 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur under section 7a of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952' ).
(2.) THE facts of this case are in very narrow compass. The petitioner has stated that it is a Company registered under the Companies Act with its registered office at Calcutta. It is doing business of Contractor. It has entered into several contracts with the Central Government as well as the State Governments for Engineering works like construction of Dams, Projects, Bridges, Tunnels, Barrage, Buildings etc. in different parts of the country. The duration of different works is different. After completion of work, the establishment at a particular place is closed. The workers are paid closure compensation and other service benefits.
(3.) ON the basis of a contract which the Company had entered into with the Government of Rajasthan, it undertook construction of Jawahar Sagar Dam near Kota. The civil engineering work of Jawahar Sagar: Dam had been completed lone back. The company terminated services of all employees excepting a few Chowkidars who had been retained to look after the property of the Company, during the pendency of the claims with the Government of Rajasthan. For carrying out civil engineering works at Jawahar Sagar Dam, the petitioner company had to maintain a small repair section for the purpose of carrying out repairs, overhauling and maintenance etc. of the machinery used by it at the site. Such repair section was a part and parcel of the civil engineering work of the Company, but no outside work was undertaken by the said repair section. It was registered under the Factories Act and was a part and parcel. of the Company. No electrical, mechanical or general engineering products were ever manufactured by the said Repair Section either for the use of the Company or for any outsider. The principle work of the petitioner company is not covered under Schedule-I of 1952 Act. The petitioner's work in repair section commenced from 17. 11. 69. A Motor of 15 H. P. was used in the repair section and 15 employees were engaged. In January 1970 only 14 workers were engaged and in July 1970, only 11 workers were engaged. At no time, the company engaged more than 15 workers in the Repair Section. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, issued a notice to the petitioner-Company on 17. 10. 69 seeking to apply the provisions of 1952 Act and the schemes framed thereunder. Thereafter, proceedings under section 7a of 1952 Act were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated, July 20, 1976 and denied its liability. The company questioned the applicability of the provisions of 1952 Act. The respondent passed an order and held that the provisions of 1952 Act were applicable to the petitioner. A direction was given to make payment of the P. P. dues within ten days.;