9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner Company under Sec.14 B of the Act cannot stand and it is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant. - W.P.No.391 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - Mr. M. DURAISWAMY J. For petitioner :Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s S. Ramasubramanian Associates For respondent :Mrs.V.J. Latha ORDER The petitioner Company has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with impugned order ref No.TN/VLR/38789/SDC/2013 dated 26.12.2013 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct that the respondent shall not have a right to proceed against the petitioner under section 14B of the PF Act. 2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows: (a) According to the petitioner Company, in the course of its business, it engages various Contractors to carry out non-perennial work, who, in turn, employed various persons to carry out the work. The petitioner Company is a Principal Employer and the Contractors, wherever required, have obtained licences and are Licensed Contractors under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioner Company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 15 days granted under the letter dated 30.8.2004. As no amount was payable by the Petitioner Company to the contractor, a letter was also sent to the Authorities dated 6.9.2004, informing them that there was no dues payable by the petitioner Company to the Contractor as per the books of the petitioner. Subsequently, the contract with that Contractor, came to an end in October 2004 and was not renewed thereafter. (h) The petitioner Company was never a party to the proceedings nor was aware of the same. The respondent had thereafter assessed the amount payable under Section 14B and Section 7-Q at ₹ 28,61,326/-. In none of the proceedings, the petitioner Company was made as a party and it was not aware of the proceedings except when the Contractor had approached the Petitioner Company for an advance after having suffered an order under Sec.7-A. The petitioner Company received a Notice under Section 8-F dated 23.2.2005, calling upon the petitioner to withhold any amount that may be payable to the said Contractor and pay over the same to the respondent. (i) By letter dated 25.2.2005, the respondent informed the petitioner that under Sec.8-A, the petitioner would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph 30 of Clause (2) of the EPF Scheme shows that in respect of empoyees employed, by or through a contractor, the contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution so deducted together with an equal amount of contribution in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution and also administrative charges . (e) In terms of Clause (3) of paragraph 30, it is the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contributions payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. (f) According to the respondent, the proceedings undr Sec.7(A) of the Act is meant for assessment of dues payable in respect of workers. It is a quasi-judicial inquiry and the officer, who is conducting such enquiry, is the sole authority to decide upon whom to be summoned. The mere fact that the principal employer viz., the petitioner was not summoned for Sec.7A inquiry cannot have the effect of nullifying the statutory responsibilities casted upon the petitioner Company. 4. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther this Court has held that with respect to the contractors, who are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to be treated as independent employer. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be treated to be principal employer for the purposes of those contractors . 7. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. V.J. Latha, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that earlier writ petitions were allowed on the ground that the petitioner herein was not a party before the respondent and therefore, the order passed by the respondent was set aside. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the order passed by this Court in WP Nos.7776 and 7777 of 2005 shall not have any binding on the present order passed by the respondent. 8. Further, the learned counsel submitted that as per Sec.2(f) of the Act, an employee, even if engaged through or by a contractor explicitly falls under the meaning of 'employee' for the purpose of the EPF and allied Schemes and the statutory contributions/administrative charges in respect of such employees ought to be remitted in time by the employer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the legal heirs of the contractor. 15. On 28.10.2011, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice under Sec.14 B of the PF Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why damages should not be imposed upon the petitioner Company. Such Notice was followed by a Notice cum levy order dated 31.10.2011. Thereafter also, the petitioner received some more notices from the Department. 16. The petitioner Company sent their reply on 12.6.2012 stating that the fresh proceedings under Sec.14 B of PF Act is not maintainable and also stated that the Contractor is an independent employer having separate PF Code and the petitioner is not liable for any default by the contractor. 17. This court in the judgment reported in 2012 LLR 702 (The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd rep by its Special Officer vs Employees' Provident Fund Organisation), cited supra has clearly held that with respect to the contractors, who are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to be treated as independent employer . 18. In the case on hand, the Contractor was allotted with EPF allotment number vide No.TN/VLR/38789/SDC/2013 in the year 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
