P.P.NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) THE Schedule appended to this order enumerates writ petitions which, according to learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, involve common question of law and facts as involved in this writ petition. Accordingly, the judgment/order passed in this writ petition shall as well govern and decide those writ petitions also and the Schedule shall form part of this order.
(2.) AS per the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner is A -Class contractor of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur. The petitioner has contracts with respondents No. 3 to 6 for construction of residential houses in different schemes of the respondents. For the aforesaid construction purpose, the petitioner engages various labours like masons, carpenters, plumbers, etc. daily on the contract basis or daily -wages basis and there is no permanent labour with the petitioner. The labours engaged are as per the requirement of the work every day. The carpenters, plumbers, masons, etc. are engaged on contract basis also and the contractors bring their own labour per day as per requirement and the petitioner has no permanent labour -force. In the field of building -construction work there are many types and many stages of the work which need different jobs and different kinds of labour for day to day work as the construction goes on. For digging of mud there are different kind of labour, for plastering, flooring, painting, etc. they need different kinds of labours. Likewise for sanitation and pipe -fitting there are different kinds of labours who have their own skill and specialisation in the respective field. Some of the labours available to the contractors perform the work on the measurement basis instead of daily -wages basis. The labours who come on work at the site on a particular day, there is no certainty that they will necessarily come on the job the next day. There are many sub -contractors available in different fields of construction. They also engage labour on daily -wages basis, ft is further alleged that the petitioner does not have a single regular labour/employee and it engages labour as per its requirement of the work. The petitioner received a letter from the respondents whereby some information was asked for from the petitioner regarding labour engaged by it. The petitioner submitted reply that it does not engage any permanent labour and the number of casual labour does not exceed 20. It has also informed to the respondents that the petitioner and the likes have All -India union and the members of the union have approached the Central Government under Section 19(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, to find mention hereinafter as 'the Act of 1952) for removal of the difficulties as to whether the workers employed at the work -sites of the establishment engaged in the building -construction industry are employees as per the definition given in Section 2 of the Act of 1952. The Central Government has given a finding In favour of the members of the union. But, the respondents did not pay any attention to the submission made by the petitioner and issued letter stating that in the absence of the information regarding employees 6% deduction from the bills of the contractors shall be made for the month of October 1993. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction/order, some of the petitioners challenged the order by filing various writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent Housing Board had issued a letter that the Housing Board will not make any deduction on account of Provident Fund from the bills of the contractors and the sum already deducted will be refunded to the contractors. On the aforesaid basis, the writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court as having become lnfructuous.
(3.) HOWEVER , the respondents have again issued order No. BHA/95/748 dated 21.12.95 whereby 10% deduction of the employees' contribution and the same amount of contribution from the contractors is to be deducted from the running bills of the contractors with effect from 01.05.95. The scheme provides for deduction from each running bill of every contractor doing the work of the Rajasthan Housing Board of the amount, being contribution towards the Provident Fund. The order is not to apply to the contracts executed before 1st of October, 1993. For the purpose the contractor was directed to furnish the particulars of the labour and the detail of the salary paid in the prescribed proforma. Such a deduction shall be made only from those contracts which have been executed after 01.10.93 and shall not apply to the contracts executed before 1.10.93. The order further provides that from 01.10.93 to 30.04.95, the labourers who worked for at least 60 days shall be deemed eligible for the provident -fund contribution. However, from 01.05.95, every labourer who has worked even for a single day shall be deemed eligible for the provident -fund contribution. For the labourers who have worked for less than 60 days for the period from 01.10.93 to 30.04.95 a certificate shall be required to be obtained from the Provident Fund Cell for refund. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the appended Schedule. Thus, in nutshell, the petitioner's case is that the manner in which the labourers are engaged by the contractors, they cannot be treated as employees within the meaning of the Act of 1952 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.;