CWP No. 23378 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23378 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.09.2011 Food Corporation of India, District Office, Chandigarh ...Petitioner versus Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge is to the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), whereby the appeal against the order dated 29.04.1993 passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 7-A of the Provident Fund Act, was dismissed holding the petitioner liable to make payment for ` 7,84,476/- allegedly being principle employer. The petitioner-Food Corporation of India, District Office, Chandigarh (for brevity 'petitioner-Corporation') deals in distribution of food- grains and other stuffs throughout the country. It involves transport loading, unloading and handling of food-grains. The quantum of work is never uniform and varies from time to time and from place to place. This work is got done by the petitioner-Corporation by employing contractor. The Contractors are appointed for a specified period usually for two years by inviting public tenders. CWP No. 23378 of 2010 -2- It is the responsibility of the Contractors to find labour and get work done as per terms of the contract. There is no relationship of employer, employees between the petitioner-Corporation and labour engaged by handling transport contractors. The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after to be referred as 'the Act') and has made assessment required the petitioner-Corporation to make a payment of ` 7,84,776/- for the period from 01/1991 to 6/1992. The petitioner-Corporation was served with a notice of demand dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-1. Thereafter, order dated 29.04.1993 (Annexure P2) was passed by Assistant Fund Commissioner directing the petitioner-Corporation to deposit the said amount within 15 days of the issue of an order failing which the same shall be required recovered under Section 8(b) to 8(g) of the Act. Vide the aforesaid order dated 29.04.1993, Mr. Noor has submitted that the present enquiry had begun with the issuance of the notices/summons dated 22.05.1990 and 15.02.1991 and 24 opportunities were granted to F.C.I to produce the wanting documents/information but the needful could not be done. Eventually, the F.C.I had deposited a sum of ` 1,52,807/- for 15 months as per the inspection report dated 28.07.1992 and on average paid ` 10,188/- per month. On the this average, assessment was made due from 12/80 to 12/90 (77 months) has been made and the amount came to ` 7,84,476/-. An appeal was filed against the order dated 29.04.1993 (Annexure CWP No. 23378 of 2010 -3- P-2) before the learned Appellate Tribunal Employees Provident Fund, New Delhi (Annexure P-3). On 19.05.2010, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that ample opportunities were granted to F.C.I to lead the evidence and the order of E.P.F authority was upheld. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the E.P.F authorities have gone wrong in assessing the amount to ` 7,84,476/- by not giving appropriate opportunity to serve the private contractors indicated by the F.C.I. The Commissioner while conducting the enquiry as contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act is authorised to enforce attendance in person and also to examine any person on oath. The Commissioner has failed to exercise this power to collect the evidence by serving the private contractors. The petitioner had given a list of Contractors and the Commissioner was duty bound to summon the contractors and record evidence. The F.C.I has not been given opportunity to lead the evidence to prove that the Contractors hired by the F.C.I were principle employer. After going through the proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Act (Annexure P-2), the payment of dues from 12/80 to 12/90 was to be assessed. The F.C.I had been paying PF dues regularly from 1/91 to 6/95. For the period 12/80 to 12/90, notice has been issued on 22.05.1990 and 15.02.1991 and since then 24 opportunities have been given to enable the F.C.I to produce the information but needful was not done. The petitioner-corporation could not given the list of contractors during the relevant period and thereafter they CWP No. 23378 of 2010 -4- could not be served. The F.C.I was not vigorous enough to serve the contractors since the F.C.I had deposited the earlier dues on average of Rs. 10188/- per month. This amount was taken as an average . This assessment has been made way back in the year 1993 when F.C.I was granted 24 opportunities to serve the contractors. The order dated 19.05.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any illegality and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 14.09.2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE