THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16918 OF 2009 Dated: 30.04.2010 Between: Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep. by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sri Laxmi Golden Plaza, 2nd & 3rd Floors, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16918 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited (for short, ‘APEPDCL’), Operation Division, Amalapuram. It is stated that the respondent – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Rajahmundry, having initiated enquiry under Section 7-A of the EPF Act for determination of amounts allegedly due from the petitioner company towards employer’s share of PF contributions for the period from 2/1999 to 5/2005 in Operation Division of Amalapuram, passed a final order dated 30.07.2009. During the course of the said enquiry, by order dated 21.7.2009 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Rajahmundry fixed the liability on the petitioner company for payment of EPF contributions in respect of the personnel engaged by PAAs and spot billing agencies. The said order 21.07.2009 is challenged in this writ petition contending that the respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to pass such an order independent of the enquiry initiated under Section 7-A. On merits, it is contended that as the petitioner company had no control or supervision over the employees engaged by the PAAs, the PAAs alone were responsible to look after the welfare measures of the employees engaged by them. It is also stated that the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Visakhapatnam, dated 16.07.2008, holding that the APEPDCL was responsible to make EPF contribution towards the employees engaged by the PAAs in other divisions of the company is the subject-matter of W.P.No.28153 of 2008 filed by the PAAs in which the writ petitioners / PAAs had voluntarily offered to come under the provisions of the EPF Act w.e.f. 1.4.2009. Having recorded their statement, this Court passed an interim order dt. 13.7.2009 to accept the contributions from the PAAs w.e.f. 1.4.2009 pending disposal of W.P.No.28153 of 2008. In view of the pendency of the said writ petition, particularly having regard to the stand taken by the PAAs that the work undertaken by them did not come under the purview of the EPF Act, the impugned order dated 21.07.2009 fixing the liability on the petitioner was unwarranted apart from being arbitrary and illegal. I have heard Smt. K. Rajyalakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R. N. Reddy, the learned counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. It is to be noticed that W.P.No.28153 of 2008 has been allowed today by a separate order holding that the persons engaged by PAAs who are executing the work of APEPDCL do not come within the definition of the employee within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 21.07.2009 was passed during the pendency of the said writ petition fixing the liability on the APEPDCL for payment of contributions in respect of the personnel engaged by PAAs on the basis of the order which was challenged in W.P.No.28153 of 2008. Now that W.P.No.28153 of 2008 has been allowed and the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Visakhapatnam, dated 16.07.2008 has been set aside making it clear that the APEPDCL was not liable for making contributions upto 31.03.2009, the order impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the common order dated 30.04.2010 in W.P.No.28153 of 2008 and W.P.No.14508 of 2009, the impugned order dated 21.07.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.04.2010 gbs