SINGLE1ENCH ^ ^^. ?p '-'^^-. BEFORE THE HON'BT.E fflGH COURT OF rHHATTI^GAR^T BILASPUR W.P.No. !2^B^-Qf2005. PETITIONER w '/^v: /^' ^/^- <^y y VE R S US Vivekanand Gautam, son ofShri Mool Chand Sharma, aged 45 years, residerit ofAvanti Vihar, Near Vijay Chowk, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDEN^^^ e >r :-1. Bharat Sanchar Nigafai Limite<^^Fough General Manager, Telecom Division, Raipur, Auto Building, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3. Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, above Nav-Bharat Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLES ^6 OF CONSTITTTTTON QF INDIA liKl XI-HC-78 4ll<ici)l ^TT^ ^Ecf <-qiq irt^, tPtTl'<-l<l<?, Rrtl^iy1< ^.f>..l±...^.^:.l?.s: M ^200 3TI^?7 q^P (llcl^61^) QTT^^T^f^t^ WH^^TSRfc?) ^?TTWr^rfin 3TT^$T 10.11.2005 Shri Pankaj Agarwat, Advo< Shri R.M. Soiapurkar, Adv(|cate None for respondent No.2. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Adv^cate The petitioner has prefer^red 226 of the Constitution of correctness of Condition No.2 o" 3) issued by respondent No.l jmposed that the person havin( Provident Funds and Miscellaneolus shali be referred to as "the tender document. Brief facts ieadin9 to f| respondent No.l herein vide N. invited tenders from the eiigibl^ of repajring of Fauity Electroni^ <& Electronic Push Button Phn estimated cost of the work i^ R^ a regjstered contractor with re^pond effect is Annexure PM1. The Ad-t cpl<4fo<n<1 ^M<?^'^'(^^l t<Rfl<<-$l^ ^3Tf^lTOT^^T ^ate for the petitioner. for respondent No.l. for respondent No.3, this writ petition under Articie India questioning the bgaiity & N.I.T. dated 8.6.2005 (Annexure P- h|erein ^hereby a condition has been regjstration under the Empioyees' Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter of 1952") shd! be entitled to file [iing of this writ petition are that I^E.T. dated 8-.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) registered contractors for the work Push Button Teiephone Instruments I|istruments for Raipur circie and the .8,04,215/a. The petitsoner herein is foondent No.l and certificate to that petjtioner has a shop in the name & styie XI-HC-78 vjxyq rqi«10<4,U>-al'<-l<l<o, Rl011<iy1< *IM«I^m^ 3n^$T'crazp(^cii^6i<s;) ^200 on^^Tcprf^rt^ nw3n^$T^w^ .-^. •"- 4 B^TT^R^rf^T 3H^$T .^-j of Gau-tam Eiectronics, hayina fi certificate of establishment isi cpi<i[c5<?t<i ^iMcyl ^fi^Q ^Rfi^-c^ ^3l1^T3^?T \fe persons in his establishment and Annexure P-2. The case of the petjtioner is that registration un<|er the Act of 1952 is necessary only when tiie contractor has employ4d 20 or more persons. The vaiue of work for which NJ.T has b^en issued by respondent No.l is Rs.8,04,215/-, but last year the • and the work was divided betwee voiume of work more than five pj 'ender was fioated for Rs,5,65,000/~ two tenderers and work to the tune of ^sA.iQflOO/- was given to th^ petitioner and work to the tune of Rs.60,000/" was given to other ^ntractor. Therefore looking to the ^rsons at a time are not required to work, as such the condition impo^ed by respondent No.l is arbitrary. It has a!so been mentioned in tltie petition that oniy Raipur circie is insisting for registration under tender of Ambikapur A Jagdalpi|r circle no such condition has been incorporated in the NIT Uitimat| No.2 of the N.I.T. (Annexure P"3| Retum has been filed on t| the Act of 1952, whereas, in the ^iy, it has been prayed that Condition 1 be quashed< ehalf of respondent No,l in which it has mentioned that as ^er provisions of the Act of 1952 respondent No.l being the pri^cipa! empioyer is iiabie to secure payment of Empioyees Provident Fund contribution (for short 'EPF) of its employees Including the wor^ers engaged through contractor for \dwi -r^iiqirt^, u>-n1^<i<s, RlrtN4y1< 40 *1M«1m*TT^ OT^^TWf^TPp ^CTOT^^TZ^TW ^ -V 3n^$Tq^q? (tjclljel^) ^200 ?^T^R^f^T3n^^T 3> its work. The condition in qu^stion has incorporated in the NIT in order to ensure the compJi4nce of provisions of 1+ie Act of 1952 and cpi^[o<nTi <ii+ioT^rI^^£l^Ri^i^ ^3Tf^T3n^$T if the petitioner is having Ie| then he shouid seek exemptio| Retum has aiso been which it has been mentionel factory engaged in any indus| 20 or more persons are emp| No.i- BSNL is an estabiishmt appiied w.e.f. 01.10.2000, th4 statutory obligatjon to enrjoil atl direct and indirect employees ^s than 20 persons in his estabtishment [i from respondent Nos.2 A 3. filed on behalf of rcspondent No.3 in ^ that every estabiishment which is a hry specified m Schedule I and in which [oyed requjres registration/ Respondent ^nt to which the Act of 1952 has been ^refore, respondent No.l-BSNL is under empioyed by it on and af^ mentioned that the definitiorl the Act of 1952 includes 1f contractor as weli. As per 1952 the principal emptoyer ir| through the contractdr requ •er 01.10.2000. It has further been of.empioyee given under Section 2(f) of •he empioyees employed by or through &rovision of Section 8-A'of the Act of respect of ony empjoyee emptoyed by or red to make compiiance and in any contractor is not registered i|inder the Act of 1952 then it is the duty of the principai empbyer i.e share of the employee-and a same in the account of empio^ respondent No.l herein to deduct the so to contribute equaliy and deposit the fee concerned with the EPF. SP/FS/2005-20,000 —-r-' XI-HC-78 vjzyq 'rq|<(lrt^, y>-al'<-f<l<o, f6|rtt<<-iy< 41 TFi^T^m^ 3TI^?T q?RP (x3crf36HS) ^200 3H^$TcPTRVlich ^TS?TOT^$T^Wj7 ^» ^ ^RTT^R^f^ 3TT^$T -^ I have heard the iearned co| Leamed counse! for th^ petitioner's estabiishment is havin more persons. Therefore, look-in^ necessary that the contractor mi| 1952 and as such, tlie said c| submitted that respondent No.i amount shait be very weif within ^i^Ic^<Tt<i ^MoT^I^l-3 ;?Rrii<<-cj^ ^3T^r3ff^$T jnset for the parties. petitioner submitted that the ] only five persons and the work for which NIT has been issued by res^ondent No.l does not require 20 or to the volume of work it is not ist be registered under the Act of ?ndition is arbitrary. He further it the time of payment of contract its right to deduct the share of empioyee and contribution of cor|trdctor equivaient to the share of eniployee and can deposit the submitted that in of Amb\ condition has been incorporated in| On the other hand, learnedl that as respondent No.2 &. 3 a| ^ame with the EPF. He further ikapur & J^daJpur circle no such the N.I.T. counse! for respondent No.l argued ways insist for compliance of the provisjons of Act of 1952/ther^fore, the condition in questbn has been incorporated in the N.LT; Learned counsei for resporldent No.3 submitted that his ctlent is concerned oniy to the extent ^hat compiiance of the provisions of the Act of 1952 shouid be made. ^ XI-HC-78 vjTyq '^l^lcW, tP-^lY-l<l<o< Rlrtl<<-iy'< / ^ ^fc »11*1«I^<TT^ ^?Tq^P(^clf3^) ^200 ^OT^^T^rf^Tfc^ nwOT^^T^Hra? ^, -/ ^^IT^R;?rf^T 31T^$T Having heard learned coun| the reievantprovisions of the Acl Sub-section (3) of Section i^ei for the parties, I have perused I of1952. t of the Ac-t of 1952 envisages that; "Subject to fhe provisions (a) to every any industryspecified in more persons are emptoyed (b) to any other e^ more persons or ciass of fiovemment may, by not specify in this behaif;" ifontalned in secthn 16, jtappife^ establis|iment which is a factory engaged 'm |chedule I and in which (twenty) or and |tablishment employing (twent/) or silch establishments which the CentraJ Efication in the Officiai Gazette, Therefore, oniy such e^ registered under the Act of empioyed. The voiume of work fot as mentioned by the petitioner in that an estabiishment shouid rnoreover, as mentioned in the vt|i circie have not incorporated the the averments in the petjtion, I No.2 of NIT requiring tenderer 1952 even if having than 20 not in consonance with the provis As far as the question of| empioyer re9ardin9 contribution <}3i^To41^ ^s*ioT ^"f^c£t;?fS?T^R ^3T^TOT^^T e^tabiishments are required to be 1^52 where 20 or more persons are which NIT has been issued is such, the petition, which does not require h4ve at Q time 20 or more persons, 'it petition/Ambikapur <& Jagdaipur |said condition. Therefore, in view of ^rn of the opinion that the Condition to be registered under tiie Act of [persons is arbitrary, as the same is |ons of Act of 1952. recovery of share of employee and ?f provident fund is concerned, it is ^^ XI-HC-78 vjTyq •^ii^io^, u>-a|^(-i*i<o, R|rti'<-iy'< 43 ^TTTOrTS^^T^ 3TI^?T q^EJ? (^jsStSS) ^200 3:I7^^TcPT^TtcF? <:i^TOT^$T^HTc}? -^' ^ RoshQn/" VJ ^ ^ ^RTT^R^ri^ OT^^T -6 srt dep|3Sit the duty of principal empioyer, ir| registered under the Act of 195^ as wel! as contractor and then to| empioyee concerned wih EPF. cornpiiance of provisions of the A{ not registered under the Act, re^ thfe amount from the petitioner r^ weli as petitioner and then to of the employee.in case the pe1|i amount in that case respondent tsp at the time of making payment of In the resuit, CIause-2 of making compuisory registration contractor is not having 20 or hereby quashed and the petiti4 observations made in the Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. N4 stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. cpi^To<nxi +is+ic^T^rf^l<ci xRrs^-ci^ ^^rf^TW^tT case where the contractor is not [, to recover the share of employee deposit the same in the account of ]Therefore, in order to ensure the ^t of 1952 even if the petitioner is (pondent No.l is entitled to recover ^g^^ding contribution of empioyee as ^sit the same in the account of EPF |itioner herein fdiis to deposit that So.l is entitled to recover the same ;ontract amount. ^SIT dated 8.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) the Act of 1952 even if the persons in his estabiishment is is disposed of in view of the of this order. 1.2313/05 & I.A. No.5525/05 aiso ijnder rrtore !€tn precedin^ paragraph Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge