IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5021 of 2000 Between: T.Shiva Kumar S/o.LAte T.Balappa, R/o.H.No.18-4-228,Adilabad Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mamaging Director A.P.State Transport Corporation Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2 The Public Relations Officer A.P.State Road Transport Corporarion Musheerabad Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner A.P, Barkatpura Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to provide for and pay the P.F. Contribution (employer's and employee's) to the 3rd respondent without deducting any amount from the agreed monthly wages for the 5 months and 19 days in respect of 7 employees (Casual Labourers) for the period of contract ended on 19-9-1999, to be paid to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.C.R.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by a Contractor, who was given contract for maintenance of Officers’ Guest House belonged to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the authority of respondents 1 and 2 in deducting the amount payable on account of provident fund contribution. 2. Pursuant to a Tender Notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner/contractor has responded to the same by offering his bid to have the contract for maintenance of the guest house belonged to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation officers. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, there was an obligation on the part of the petitioner to engage minimum 4 workers for cleaning, sweeping, gardening and washing of curtains etc., and there was also a condition that the contractor shall take care of 3 room attendants who are employed in the Engineering Department to attend the calls of guests staying in the guest house. 3. During the period of contract, the provident fund contributions of employers and employees were deducted by respondents 1 and 2 so as to transmit the same to the 3rd respondent. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is liable to pay the provident fund contribution only insofar as four workers are concerned, as he has appointed them, and for the remaining three workers, he was not liable to make any contribution towards provident fund, but however, deductions were made illegally towards the provident fund contribution in respect of these three workers also, from the bills payable to him. When the deductions were being made, the petitioner has made a representation dated 29.09.1999, but as the said representation was not considered by the respondents, he has filed the present writ petition. 4. Even as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the representation filed by the petitioner appears to have not been considered by the respondents and so far no decision has been taken on the same. Whether the Provident Fund amounts in respect of the three workers are to be paid either by the petitioner or by respondents 1 and 2, is to be considered based on the representation filed by the petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner is still to be considered by the respondents, without going into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a fresh copy of the representation dated 29.09.1999 before respondents 1 and 2 along with a copy of this order, within a period of four weeks from today. On filing such representation, the respondents shall consider it and take appropriate decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereof. It is made clear that the question whether the provident fund amount is payable either by the petitioner or by respondents 1 and 2, is to be considered by the respondents, in reference to the plea of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the provident fund contribution in respect of the three employees belonging to the Engineering Department. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th January 2009. ajr