VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent NTPC and respondent EPF.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for two specific reliefs - (i) for canceling the Sub -Code Number granted to the Contractors and (ii) for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to deposit the employers contribution with the employees contributions towards the Provident Fund for the workmen engaged in the NTPC by the various contractors since 1987 till date. Shorn of the detailed fact is that there is an instruction issued by the Central Provident Fund commissioner, Annexure -6, which has deprecated the practice of allotment of the separate Sub -Code Number in the following terms : - - "No. 17(3)93/E.I/K.N. Dated 3.7.1998 To All Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Officers -in - Charge of Sub - Regional Offices Subject : Coverage of contract labour under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, issue of Code numbers. Sir It has come to notice that some Regional Offices are issuing code number to the contractors. Such contractors are not properly complying and the principal employees are also avoiding compliance on the ground that contractors are independently covered. It is also observed that some employers have started insisting that they will not award any contract to the contractors if they do not hold separate code number. Instructions issued vide circular Numbers E. 111/6(7)83 -KN dated 20.7.1990, 2nd. January, 1991, and number 17(3) 92/EJ dated 24.3.1994 regarding issuance of sub -code number are to be read and understood properly vide these circulars, only principal employers were permitted to be allotted sub -code numbers and not the contractors. Despite the clear instructions, the practice of allotment of separate code numbers to the contractors is still continuing. The practice of allotment of separate code number to the contractor is contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and para 30(3) of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The responsibility of depositing contributions and various returns lies with the principal employers. Even if contractor has a code number, the responsibility remains with the principal employer, who cannot escape from the statutory liabilities. Vide letter number D.O. No. R -11011/2/98 -SS -II dated 18.5.1998, Government of India has directed to stop the practice of allotment of separate code number to the contractor forthwith and submit detailed list of contractors to whom separate code numbers have been allotted during the last two years, indicating as to whether or not such contractors have complied with the provisions of the Act for enabling the Ministry to take further necessary action in the matter. You are therefore requested to stop the allotment of code number forthwith and furnish the above details indicating therein name of the contractor with code number, date from which covered, name of the principal employer, average number of employees employed, compliance position, date of last inspection carried out by Enforcement Officer and special remarks, if any."
(3.) FROM perusal of the aforesaid Annexure, it is apparent that in the year 1994, a direction was given not to allot sub -code number to the contractors, but since that practice was being continued, this Annexure -6 was issued again in the year 1998. What has happened in this case is that despite issuance of the aforesaid instructions, the Provident Fund Officials under the Scheme have granted sub -code numbers to the contractors. Therefore, despite the deductions, which appear to have been made, have not been deposited as per the Scheme.;