- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of determination of dues under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 dated May 6, 1986 by which the liability in respect of Good Work Reward and Contractor's Employee was determined.
(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that good work reward has been paid to the employees for the over time which does not fall within the definition of basic wages as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also submitted that the words 'any other similar allowance payable to the employee' have also been used u/section 2 (b) (ii) and as such even if the amount does not fall within the category of 'over time allowance' then it is 'any other similar allowance'. The second point which has been raised is with regard to liability which has been fixed on account of Contractors' employee and good work. It is stated that those employees were neither employed by the petitioner Company nor are known to the petitioner and few of the contractors are already covered under the Act and are paying dues. It is also stated that the notice has not been given for all the contractors while the liability has been determined in respect of various contractors and thus, the petitioner is deprived of basic principles of audi alterem partem.
(3.) IN this regard it may be observed that in the order of determination dated May 6, 1986 the Commissioner observed that the petitioner has not furnished the particulars relating to contractors' employees, their pay etc. , except to the extent that few of their transport contractors have been stated to be already covered under the Act and the other two do not own any truck but only arrange trucks from the market whenever required.;