169

,., I I.,

.. i'
appeared before the authority and furnished list of contractors engaged

by appellant for the period 12/80 to-01/1991 except 09/1990 and thereby

made specific request to summon ar the contractors individually and to

make them party to the proceeding as it was/ is necessary for

. identification of the workers. The LJ. Respondent issued notices to all

the contractors only through the Appellant but neither summoned them

nor made~ them parties in the case, so that the beneficiaries ~ould be

identified.

(I) BECAUSE the Ld,:f_f.espondent committed grave error in fail1ng to

appreciate th~t theJi'st· submitted by the Workers Unio~ ~f 139 Workers

was incomplete 111 respect of address, age; duration of employment etc

and contains ho specific particulars of the contractors by whom the

workers w.ere employed.

(J) BECAUSE the Ld. Respondent committed grave error in failing to

apprccic1te that the Appellant made request to the Worker's Union

directly and also before the Authority to produce the documents for

verifirnlion internlia Attendance Register, W,igcs Register & Ledger,

Cash Book, Labour Payment Voucher et:. so that the authenticity of the

alleged workers' claim be ascertained but !:he 1;ame were never produced

by the Worker Union or any of the Worker's themselves.

(K) BECAUSE the Ld. Respondent committed grave error in failing to

apprccic1te ti-mt the Appellant also made :Jonafide efforts to intimate the

Contractors to produce the relevant records of their respective workers

in order to identify the beneficiaries of the PF amount but none of the

Contractors came forward to produce the rccorc.is pert.aining to their

Workmen having worked in the f.ppellant's Organizat1on during the

rel2vant period. The Ld. Respondent also did not take any serious step

to ensure the appearance of the Contractors in the proceedings so that

the beneficiaries could not identified.

(L) BECAUSE the impugned Order shows complete non-application of

mind as the same passed by Ld. Respondent is based on earlier

assessment Order for the same amount. fhe assessment Order without

identifirntion of worke~s was repeatedly set aside by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for fresh

assessn1ent with a direction to identify the actual beneficiary workman

after 'summoning the contractors. In the instant matter, the Ld

Respondent in spite of having powers ~s are vested i;1 a Court" under

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while conducting an inquiry under

Section 7-A (1) of the Act of 1952 did not ,:noose to summon and ensure
.i· -

att~ndance of the contractors. As a matter of fact under the Act of 1952,

from the employer and to make actual payment- of it by identifying the

workers/ employees. The Commissioner in the instant matter failed to

make any effort to identify the real bendlciary.

(M) BECAUSE the Ld. Respondent erron0.ously relied upon list of workers

filed by the Workers Union and thc,:iffid'1vit filed o( its President. The

Union has not provided m'ly actual details about the number of workers

or their names, duration ~f work, addresses and other particulars of the

workers employed by the contractors in respect of whom the Appellant

has been .rnade responsible to pay the dues. Further it is also the case

where the Learned R~spondent did not ensure ti- e presence of the

contractors. The Learned Respondent failed to discharge its legal duty

cast upon it under Section 7 A and contr,1ry to its own proceedings

without vcrifirntion of the beneficiary, proceeded to reiterate its earlier

r)(d assessment the basis of which h~s already been deprecated by the

vrv
1 Hon'ble High Court. Moreover the Ld. "/A Authority by an arbitrary,

med1anical and pre-meditated Order and contrary to the undisputed·

. fac_t tl~at beneficiaries have not been identified, without any application
 171
.. I

r
of m.ind reaffirmed its earlier mechanical calculati Jn in the garb ·~f an

Appellate authority concluding as "I am, therefore, inclined to conclude

enquiry on the basis of evidence on record and on the basis of

documents adduced during Section 7 A e,1quiry and as such there are no

reasons and grounds for me· to interefere with the impugned orders of

then Learned Section 7 A Authority as also to the m2thodology of

assessment for which due diligence was exercised by the authority".

(N) BECAUSE as pointed out that the establishment of the contractors' and

the Appellant's establishments are entirely different, the contractors'

workers cannot by any stretch of imagination be called workers of the

Appellant. In fact, the worke.rs in question are the workers of the

contractors who are their employer and it is the primary responsibility

of the employer to pay the Provident Fund dues. The failure of the

Lc,rnwd Respondent to ensure the presence of the contractors to identify

the bcneficic1ry c1nd to c1sccrtc.1in their liilb:lity totally vitic1t<-;s the Orders

passed by the authority.

(0) 13E~/\USE the Learned Regiorwl Provident Fund Con1missioner foiled to

appreciate that the ten:n "Principal Employer" has not been defined in

the Act and Scheme the:·e u,nder. The contract of the contractors w_ith :~e
~ ,' .
Appeliant is essentially a works contract and not for supply of labour. If

tile wnlr,1etors engage .iny of the bbounir~; for the purposes of executing

the tendered work, st:ich persons are to be treated as Contractors'

en,ployees_ for all intent ai'ld purposes. There is no control of the

,,ppcll,rnt o•;c:r these employees. They are not the emplf')yces 0f H,r:>

appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot be the Principal Employer

under the.provisions of the Act. A look at.the definition _of the employer
. ~

and employee would show tha/it ·is· between the Contractors and the Ld.

Respondent to settle the mwJunt of the Providert Fund dues in respect

of the labourers· of the Contractors to be paid to the Provident Fund