HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 262 of 2008 (M/S) Old No. 2460 of 1996 (M/B) D.N. Singh … Petitioner Versus The Food Corporation of India & others … Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 23rd June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Advocate represents respondent nos. 1 to 3. However, this Court has taken help of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. K.P. Upadhyay who has assisted this Court in explaining the case of the petitioner before this Court. His efforts are appreciated. The petitioner is a Handling and Transport contractor appointed by the Food Corporation of India for performing handling and transport work at Tanakpur. The petitioner has filed this writ petition apprehending that the Food Corporation of India is going to deduct 20 per cent of the total amount payable to the petitioner under Employees’ Provident Fund to be paid to the workers employed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the workers which are employed by the petitioner are not covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (from hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and, therefore, deduction of 20 per cent from the bills of petitioner is wholly wrong. Hence the writ petition. From a bare perusal of Section 2 (f) of the Act, it appears that all employees whether directly or indirectly employed by the employer are included in the definition of employee. Section 2 (f) of the Act reads as follows : “2. Definitions. – (f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual of otherwise, in or in connection with the work of [an establishment], and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, [and includes any person, - (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment;] However, the writ petition seems to be premature as it has been filed merely on an apprehension of deduction of 20 per cent amount from the bills of petitioner. Under Section 7-A of the Act, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has got powers to determine whether the Act is applicable on the petitioner or the workers employed by the petitioner or not. Therefore, the petitioner has a remedy before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Act and, therefore, filing of the writ petition is wholly misconceived. In the counter affidavit, the Food Corporation of India has justified its stands on deduction of 20 per cent amount and has stated that the Food Corporation of India is responsible for the welfare and wages of workers engaged by the petitioner. Moreover, it is stated that the petitioner has failed to produce any exemption certificate from the Enforcement Officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner. It is also stated that it is the statutory responsibility of the Food Corporation of India to deduct this amount from the bills of the petitioner as it is used for the welfare of the workers employed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the writ petition being premature is not maintainable. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 16.8.1996 is hereby vacated. The petitioner, if so advised, may pursue his remedy before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.6.2009 Avneet