MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICAL CO LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding the petitioner responsible for contribution of the provident fund in regard to workers employed through contractors.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the decision of this petition are that the petitioner is employing more than twenty workers and therefore, is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and it is alleged that, therefore, the petitioner is performing its obligation under that Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 started proceedings to cover the labour employed through contractors and the petitioner was informed about it. Thereafter the petitioner represented to the respondent No. 1 that in view of the legal position no liability could be fastened against the petitioner in regard to the employees employed through contractors, under the Act. But respondent No. 1 ruled in the impugned order that the contract-labour will be covered by the provisions of the Act and the Scheme thereunder. Consequently, the petitioner has submitted this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that under the Scheme of the Act the petitioner is expected to deduct from the wages of the workers their part of the contribution to the provident fund scheme and pay it to the respondent No. 1. But according to petitioner, when the worker is employed through a contractor the liability to pay wages is not that of the employer, that is the petitioner. Consequently, he has no authority to deduct the contribution of the provident fund and, therefore, no liability could be fastened against him for payment of that part of the contribution under the provident fund scheme to the respondent No. 1. In support of the contention learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in Orissa Cement Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1962-I L. L. J. 400. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that after the decision in Orissa Cement Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. the Act and the Scheme under the Act have been amended. The contention that was raised before their Lordships of the Supreme Court has now been specifically met by an amendment and in insertion of a new Section 8a in the Act. At the same time, the Scheme as also been amended and the labourers employed through contractors have also been specifically covered under the Scheme under the Act. Learned Counsel also contended that on inquiry it was found that those who were actually labourers, or some of them, have been categorized as " contractors " with the only purpose to defeat the provisions of the Act, He also contended that in the decision reported in Nazeena Traders (P) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad 1966-I L. L. J. 334, similar contention were advanced and were negatived. Consequently, according to learned Counsel, there is no substance in this petition.