14.06.wp1504.2011.odt 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1504/2011. M/s. Sanghvi Machineries & Fabrication Pvt. Ltd., Butibori, Nagpur. -vs- The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.S. Ghate, Adv. for the petitioner. Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED: 14/06/2011. By the above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal by which order the appeal filed by the petitioner being A.T.A. No. 422(9)2007 came to be dismissed. The petitioner is having its Unit at the address mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner volunteered to cover itself under the Employees Provident Fund Act w.e.f. 01.02.2004. It appears that on 31.05.2005, a summons came to be issued to the petitioner in respect of enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and 14.06.wp1504.2011.odt 2/5 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner was directed to produce the relevant material in the form of ledger book, cash book, balance sheet, vouchers, muster register etc. The said enquiry was initiated on the report of the Inspector who exercises powers under the said Act. By an order dated 22.03.2006 passed under Section 7-A of the said Act, a certain sum was found due and payable from the petitioner from 01.07.2000, the same was on the basis that apart from the 16 employees of the petitioner, who were shown on the muster roll there were other 4 employees. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.2006, the petitioner preferred a review application. In the said review application, the petitioner, inter-alia, contended that the said four employees could not be covered under the said Act. The said application came to be rejected by the order dated 21.05.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 7(I) of the said Act. As indicated above, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order and rejected the Appeal. It is pertinent to note that whilst adjudicating the Section 7-A notice, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has taken into consideration the vouchers by which the payment was made to one Jagdamba Engineering Services, as also to one 14.06.wp1504.2011.odt 3/5 Jagdamba Security Services. The authority also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had deducted an amount of Rs.4417/- as T.D.S. while making the payment to the said Jagdamba Engineering Services. The authorities under the said Act therefore, recorded a finding that the said Jagdamba Engineering Services is a contractor of the petitioner and therefore, the employees of the contractor are to be covered under the said Act as the employees of the petitioner. In so far as the challenge to the appellate order is concerned, it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the ground urged by the petitioner in respect of the four employees which have been held to be the employees of the petitioner. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by cryptic order the appeal has been disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the Provident Fund authorities Dr. R.S. Sundaram has contended that the order passed under Section 7-A is an elaborate order taking into consideration the material on record which is in the form of vouchers, the T.D.S. Certificate etc., as also the material which has been reflected in the order passed under Section 7-A. In so far as 14.06.wp1504.2011.odt 4/5 the appellate order is concerned the learned counsel would contend that the issues in this regard have already been dealt with. However, since the petitioner has not produced any other material in support of its case that the said four employees were not its employees, the findings given by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the order passed 7-A and 7-B have been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is required to be noted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the said Jagdamba Engineering Services was never engaged by the petitioner for carrying out the work of the petitioner, it is also not the case of the petitioner that the employees of the Jagdamba Engineering Services are covered under the said Act. If that be so, in terms of Section 2-f of the said Act, the principal employer i.e. the petitioner would be liable for the dues under the said Act. The Appellate Tribunal has considered the aspect of the applicability of the Act to the petitioner from 01.07.2000 and confirmed the findings of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Though the Appellate Tribunal in its order refers to various judgments, the said judgments have been cited in support of its findings, as regards the compliance of the principles of natural justice, as also the position in law, 14.06.wp1504.2011.odt 5/5 that it is the obligation of the principal employer to pay the provident fund dues in respect of the contractors employees. Having perused the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the orders passed under Section 7-A and 7-B, in my view the findings arrived at by the authorities under the said Act as also the findings arrived by the Appellate Tribunal, same do not merit any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order which is operating in the above petition till this date, is continued for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE Nikhare