IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 395 of 2006 Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation ...Petitioner Versus Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Haldwani, District Nainital and another …Respondents. Present : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. S. Patni, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitioner is an establishment within the meaning of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Petitioner is not an exempted establishment within the meaning of the said Act. In order to facilitate discharge of the obligations of the petitioner under the Act, the petitioner has been allocated a Code Number. Petitioner has several branches and one of them is situate at Haldwani. For Haldwani Branch of the petitioner a separate Code Number has been issued, hence this writ petition. Under the Act or Rules framed thereunder, there is no prescription for issuance of a Code Number. Code Numbers are issued for facilitating discharge of the obligations by the Employers under the Act and verification by the Provident Fund Authorities whether such discharge has been made in accordance with the Act and Rules. However, in terms of the provisions of the Act, it is the establishment, which is responsible for 2 discharging its responsibilities and not the branches of the establishment. By purporting to issue a Code Number to Haldwani Branch, the Provident Fund Authorities sought Haldwani Branch of the petitioner to discharge obligations of the Employer under the Act. The Employer, in terms of the Act, is the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and establishment includes all the Departments and branches of such establishment. That being the situation, we are of the view that in the absence of a request made by the petitioner, the Provident Fund Authorities could not issue a separate Code Number for Haldwani Branch of the petitioner. We, accordingly, allow the petition and set aside allocation of a separate Code Number for Haldwani Branch of the petitioner. We make it clear that while dealing with the petition, we have not gone into the question, whether Haldwani Branch or the establishment of the petitioner has discharged its obligations under the Act and, accordingly, it shall be open to the respondents to take such recourse to law, as they may be advised, in the event they are of the view that the petitioner or its Haldwani Branch has not discharged its obligations under the Act. We further make it clear that any proceeding initiated on the basis of the Code Number, which has been struck down by this order, should be deemed to have been closed and for that purpose it shall be open to the respondents to initiate fresh and new proceeding under the original Code. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 3.5.2011 Rathour