IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14338 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 30, 2011. Maruti Suzuki India Limited .....Petitioner versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nitin Sarin and Ms.Divya Sodhi, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-company is aggrieved by the notice dated 19.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) arising out of the proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act) as well as the enquiry notice dated 16.6.2010 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissing its appeal against one of the above-stated order on the plea that the same is an interim order only and in the absence of a final order under Section 7-A of the 1952 Act, the appeal CWP No.14338 of 2010 [2] was not maintainable. Respondent No.1 has filed its reply affidavit to support the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. The fulcrum of the controversy is whether the petitioner- company is liable to contribute towards the Provident Fund even for the employees hired by the transporters for carrying vehicles from the petitioner's factory premises to its different dealers. Keeping in view the definition of 'Principal Employer' under Section 2 (f) of the 1952 Act, suffice it to observe that in a given case, the Principal Employer can also be liable for contribution for an employee engaged by the contractor hired by such Principal employer. The moot question to be determined in the present case, therefore, is whether the 'Transporters' were hired by the petitioner- company or by its dealers? The said question of fact is crucial and goes to the root of the matter to determine the petitioner's liability. It is, thus, imperative upon the Authority under the Act, firstly to determine, whether or not the said Transporters were hired by the petitioner-company or by its dealers. The consequential liability, if any, shall depend upon the finding of fact to be returned by the Prescribed Authority on that crucial issue. The Appellate Authority, however, appears to be right in not interfering with the impugned order before it, on the plea that it was only an interlocutory order. Be that as it may and in the light of the observations made herein-above, the Authority under the Act is obligated and is CWP No.14338 of 2010 [3] accordingly directed to firstly determine the issue as to whether the employees in relation to whom the liability is sought to be fastened were engaged by the 'Transporters' and if so, whether such Transporters were hired by the petitioner-company or its Dealers. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to produce the relevant records. The petitioner shall fully co- operate with the enquiry to be conducted by the Authority and it will produce all the relevant records. In case the petitioner-company does not have such records, it shall furnish the details of the Transporters as well as of its Dealers who are said to have engaged them and such Transporters/Dealers shall also be required to produce the relevant records. Ordered accordingly. There are other issues raised by the petitioner touching the merit of the issue for which the matter has been relegated to the Authority prescribed under the Act. Those issues are, therefore, purposefully kept open with liberty to 're-agitate', if so required in future. Till the final decision is taken by the Authority, it is directed that recovery of the fine shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner-company is directed to appear before the 1st respondent through its authorized representative on 15.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. Dasti. November 30, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE