9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of liability of a petitioner, who is an exempted establishment under section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to pay Provident Fund contribution on behalf of security agencies. The key issues include the petitioner's legal obligation to pay contributions, the liability of the petitioner as a principal employer, and the applicability of a judgment from the Patna High Court regarding exemption from the scheme. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Liability of the petitioner to pay Provident Fund contribution on behalf of security agencies The petitioner, a cooperative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, with its own Provident Fund Scheme, availed services of security agencies. The security agencies, including Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, were found to have defaulted in payment of Provident Fund contributions. An order was passed under section 7-A of the Act, imposing liability on the petitioner as a principal employer to pay the contributions in case of default by the security agencies. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was not obligated to pay contributions for independent establishments. The court upheld the petitioner's liability to pay contributions for Jayam/Sward Security Service but quashed the order regarding Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, stating that the petitioner cannot be considered a principal employer for contractors with independent code numbers. Issue 2: Applicability of a judgment from the Patna High Court The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment from the Patna High Court regarding exemption from the Provident Fund scheme for principal employers. The court considered this argument and found that the petitioner, being an exempted establishment under section 17 of the Act, cannot be held liable for contributions of contractors with independent code numbers. The court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the order for Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service but upholding the order for Jayam/Sward Security Service. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner's liability to pay Provident Fund contributions is limited to contractors without independent code numbers. The judgment from the Patna High Court supported the petitioner's contention, leading to the partial allowance of the writ petition. The order under section 7-A was quashed for Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service, while upheld for Jayam/Sward Security Service. The respondents were permitted to execute the order independently against Victory Security Service and Loyal Security Service.
|
