IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12374 of 2006 Resham Khadi Seva Udyog Head Office : Jogsar, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur through its Secretary, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Son of Devi Nandan Prasad, R/o Jogsar, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The Regional Commissioner, E.P.F.O, R – Block Patna 2. The Assistant Commissioner E.P.F.O, Sub-Regional Office, Adampur, Bhagalpur 3. The Recovery Officer, E.P.F.O, Sub-Regional Office, Adampur, Bhagalpur 4. The Direction, Khadi Coordination, Khadi and village Industries commission, 3 Irla Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai 5. The Director, State office, Khadi and village Industries Commission , New B.V. College, Sheikhpura, Patna 6. The Khadi Poly Vastra , Shilpi Kalyan Awam Pension Nyas (Trust), Bihar, through its Chairman, Head office : Sarovdaya Gram, Muzaffarpur 7. The Secretary, Khadi Poly Vastra , Shilpi Kalyan Awam pension Nyas (Trust), Bihar, thorugh its Chairman, Head office : Sarvodaya Gram, Muzaffarpur ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent nos. 4 and 5: Mr. Dhanendra Choubey, Advocate ----- 2 01.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as the Respondent nos. 4 and 5. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act and certified by Khadi Village 2 Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the KVIC”) and Village Industries Commission and is running as per the directions and the guidelines issued by it. Petitioner is aggrieved by order as contained in Annexure 9, whereby the Respondent no. 2 has passed orders directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount with interests in lieu of its contribution towards the provident fund of the weavers and spinners, who have worked with it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the notice issued by the provident fund authority the petitioner had filed show cause, a copy of which has appended as Annexure 5 and point has been raised that the N.G.Os. or the Institutions which are functioning under the umbrella of KVIC and Village Industries Association are engaging two types of workers. First are those who are the salaried workers and second are those who are khadi artisan. It is submitted that there is no employee - employer relationship between them, rather they do their agricultural works etc. and return in present work as 3 weavers and spinners when they were free from their original work. However, for their benefit and welfare, State Level Artisan Welfare Fund Trust has been established according to the necessary guidelines. The provisions of the KVIC allow for contribution by artisans @ 12% of the wages matched equally by contribution from institution and that are being deposited. In fact, State Level Artisan Welfare Fund Trust has been created at the initiative of the Central Certification Committee of the KVIC. However, it is urged, that none of the points raised by the petitioner have been considered by the Provident Fund Authority while passing the impugned order as contained in annexure 9 at the time of hearing of this case. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 produced a letter No. DKC/SSM/AWFT/PF/MOL/2006-07 dated 2.11.2006 by the KVIC addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi raising the similar issues which are involved in this case and having urged for exemption of these institutions. 4 On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund authorities submitted that these institutions have been declared to be covered under the Act as back as 1980 itself, and, thus, after submission of the list by the petitioner the impugned order has correctly been passed by the authority. However, he fails to point out from the impugned order that the show cause submitted by the petitioner and the points raised under the show cause have been considered and dealt with by the Provident Fund authorities while passing the impugned order. However, learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 7(I) of the E.P.F. Act but he did not approach the forum of appeal and has directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, upon consideration of materials on record, this Court finds force on the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that issues that have been raised by the petitioner by filing a show cause have not been considered by the Provident Fund 5 authority while passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure 9. It is true that he has not availed the forum of statutory appeal, however, since this Court proposes to pass an order of remand to the Provident Fund authorities in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and also due to the fact that the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2006 itself, i.e., already 5 years have elapsed since filing of this writ application, it would not be proper to relegate the petitioner at this stage to the appellate authority. As a result, the impugned order dated 19.7.2006 as contained in Annexure 9 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration. The petitioner would appear before the Respondent no. 2 within six weeks and thereafter the Respondent no. 2 shall fix a date and proceed with the matter and after hearing to the concerned and taking into consideration the show cause filed by the petitioner, would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 6 Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)