PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) Since identical issues are involved in both the writ applications and challenge has been made to quash common impugned order dated 09.10.2015, with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, both the writ applications were heard together and by a common order, they are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) Petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 506 of 2016 - Tata Motors Limited earlier known as M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd (Telco) (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-company') is a leading vehicle manufacturer company whereas Petitioner in W.P. (L) No. 641 of 2016 - Telco Transport Companies Association (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner-association') is an association of independent transporters. Petitioners in both the writ applications have knocked the door of this Court for quashing order dated 09.10.2015 passed by respondent - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as "RPFC") whereby it has been inter alia decided that: (a). There is relationship of "employer and employee" between M/s TTCA and Convoy Drivers; (b). M/s TTCA is the employer of these Convoy Drivers; (c). M/s Tata Motors Ltd. is the Principal employer for whom M/s TTCA has been a contractor; (d). M/s Tata Motors Ltd and M/s TTCA are required to submit documents, referred in the order, to determine the Provident Fund and allied dues in respect of Convoy Drivers for the period from 04/1971 till date within fifteen days and latest by 30.01.2016; (e). M/s Tata Motors Ltd. being the Principal Employer will ensure production of documents relating to all payments incurred towards transportation of its chassis from its Jamshedpur Plant to its Regional Sales Office for the period from 04/1971 onward.
(3.) Further prayer has been made in W.P. (L) No.506 of 2016 for declaration that the proceeding u/s 7A or under any other provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not maintainable against the petitioner - company in the absence of or without there being any notification by the Central Government under Section 1(3)(b) of the EFP and MP Act and also for declaration that the "the work of transportation of chassis/newly manufactured vehicles from outside factory to different sales offices by contractors of the petitioner - company through professional drivers on sub - contract is not a work of manufacturing in a 'Factory' or not a work of an "Establishment" notified" u/s 1(3)(b) of the EPF and MP Act.;