IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1216 of 2001 Date of decision: 23.7.2008 Sukh Ram. Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. Petitioner is a Labour Supply Mate/Contractor. Admittedly, he supplies labour to the respondent- H.P.State Forest Corporation for felling and extraction of timber. The Forest Corporation has intimated the petitioner that it would be introducing the following clause in its agreement to be entered into with him:- “The Contractor(s)/Labour Supply Mate(s) will enroll himself/themselves for an independent EPF number under the Employment Provident Fund Scheme and will remit EPF of labourers and his/their share to the EPF authorities, if payable. He/they will be responsible to send all returns regularly to the EPF authorities and copy thereof to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Divisional Managers. He/they will also provide a copy of roll call register showing wages of labour every month to the Divisional Managers. In case of failure of remitting the EPF dues in time the Divisional Manager shall be competent to deduct the EPF dues from the work bills of the Contractor(s) Labour Supply Mate(s).” According to the petitioner, this clause is in violation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and contrary to the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 330/2000 and CWP No.293/2000 decided on 29.11.2000 and, as such, cannot be permitted to be made part of the agreement to be entered into between the parties. It is further contended that the respondent cannot force the petitioner to get himself registered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) and the petitioner cannot be forced to deposit provident fund in respect of the employees engaged through contract. The stand of the Corporation is that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner took the view that even in respect of persons employed by the contractor/labour supply mate they could be said to be employees of the corporation and hence entitled to benefits of the act. The appeal filed by the Corporation 3 was rejected by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Authority. The Corporation thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition which writ petition was dismissed. The Corporation filed an appeal before the apex Court wherein it was not disputed that the Corporation was covered under the provisions of the Act. The apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation and held that the Corporation was liable to pay the amount of Provident Fund in respect of those employees who were employed through contractor/labour supply mate. Thereafter, the Corporation issued letter to the petitioner indicating that it would be incorporating the aforesaid clause in the agreement entered into with the petitioner. We are unable to comprehend how the petitioner can urge that this clause should not be incorporated in the agreement. This is a contract between the parties and by means of this contract the Corporation wants to ensure that the Labour Supply Mate/Contractor will obtain independent EPF number and will remit the provident fund dues in respect of the employees, if payable. This is a contract to be entered into between the parties. In case the petitioner does not want to abide by such terms no body is forcing him to take the work of Labour Supply Mate/Contractor. If he 4 wants to take the work of Labour Supply Mate/Contractor he shall have to abide by the terms of the clause which is incorporated in the agreement. We may add that the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and the scheme framed thereunder are made for the benefit of the employees. The employees engaged by the petitioner are his employees. It may be true that in the event of petitioner failing to remit the provident fund, responsibility can be fixed on the principal employer i.e. the Forest Corporation to pay the amount. In that sense a party like the Corporation which awards work on contract is, some times, termed as the principal employer. This is, however, done to protect the employees so that if a small contractors or labour supply mates fail to deposit their dues the employees can recover their dues from the Corporation. This has no nexus with the agreement between the Corporation and the Labour Supply Mate/Contractor. Reference in this behalf may be made to Section 12(A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, wherein a principal employer who is held liable to pay compensation in respect of an employee engaged by a contractor can recover the amount paid from the dues payable to the contractor. There is nothing which prevents the contractor from factoring the amount payable 5 under the EPF Act while submitting his tender for supply of labour. In our considered opinion the petition is totally misconceived and the contractor has no right to claim that the aforesaid clause should not be incorporated in the agreement. The petition being without any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 23rd July, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™