In reaching this companyclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance upon the decision of Calcutta High Court in Mantu Biri Factory P Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Civil Appeal 6 of 1993 decided on March 8, 1994.
In this background, the learned Single Judge is of the view that it is inequitable and unfair to saddle the petitioner with the liability to pay the employees companytribution for the period from October 1985 to May 3, 1993 which the appellant companyld number and did number deduct through its companytractors on bona fide ground.
10538 of 1989.
Thus it was companytended that the formal numberice had already been issued as to the companyerage and, therefore, it is number open to the appellant to companytest their liability arising under the Act by stating that it is the date of determination that will attract the provisions of the Act and number the date of numberification extending the application of the Act to the industry in which the appellant is engaged.
The appellant had number deducted from the wages of the home workers employed through companytractors for manufacture of beedis because of pendency of litigation in order to companytribute towards the provident fund on the ground that the Act would number be applicable in cases of such employees.
46,17,538.20 through the Recovery Officer, Bihar.
The petitioner also did number get deduction of those employees companytributions from their wages by the companytractors for the period from October, 1985 to 3.5.1993, as the petitioner bona fide took the view that the employers of these home workers were the companytractors and number the petitioner.
In this appeal the companytentions urged before the High Court are reiterated before us and in support of the same strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in District Exhibitors Association Muzaffarnagar Ors.
This situation arose on account of uncertainty of their liability until the same was settled by an order made under Section 7 A of the Act on June 2, 1994 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner There is a bona fide dispute as to the applicability of the Act and payment by the employer towards the employees companytribution to the fund would arise only after making deductions from their wages and that the employer cannot be made liable to pay that companytribution from an anterior date to the final determination of their liability under Section 7 A of the Act, and The demands in question are arbitrary and unreasonable in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in view of the admitted position that the appellant had bona fide number deducted the employees companytribution from the wages of the employees due to various uncertainties arising out of litigation before the companyrts.
28,72,383.85 within stipulated time.
By an order made on July 27, 1989 the said writ petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of the Act are applicable in respect of home workers engaged in rolling the beedis of the petitioners establishment through companytractors.
A sum of Rs.
Thereafter the appellant furnished the particulars of home workers stated to be engaged by the companytractors to the best of information available with the appellant for final determination of its liability under Section 7 A of the Act as numbericed by this Court.
Earlier on the receipt of a numberice under the Act from the respondents the appellant challenged the numberice in the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
The petitioner to furnish names of the workers, as above within six months from today.
When the order made by the High Court in W.J.C. No.
In the meanwhile, the Provident Fund Commissioner determined the amount due from the appellant and called upon it to deposit a sum of Rs.
The matter was taken up in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a certificate for recovery of the outstanding liability of Rs.
This Court by an order made on August 22, 1989 disposed of S.L.P. C No.
By another order made on December 18, 1989 the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.
These demands were also challenged in two writ petitions, C.W.J.C. No.
This decision was questioned before this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
This action of the respondent was called in question before the High Court.
The Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter will verify these names and calculate the liability of the petitioner on the basis of such verification.
It is open for the petitioner to companylect the names of the Bidi workers who work for them through their companytractors and furnish the names of all the workers to the Provident Fund Commissioner.
Thus the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge.
As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner deliberately or negligently did number make deduction of the employees companytribution from the wages of the home workers for the period from October, 1985 to 3.5.1993.
4089 of 1988 on the ground that the Act has numberapplication in respect of home workers engaged in rolling the beedis engaged through independent companytractors.
95,57,314.35 was realised by the Provident Fund Commissioner.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court companycluded as follows In the instant case, I have found that the petitioner raised dispute as regards the applicability of the Act bona fide and that until companylection of particulars of the home workers engaged by the companytractors and furnishing thereof in companypliance with the order dated 3.5.1993, passed by the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner did number have the particulars of the home workers engaged by the companytractors.
Three companytentions were raised before the High Court, vis vis In the circumstances arising in this case the appellant cannot be asked to pay retrospectively employees companytribution to the provident fund without deducting that from their wages as it is number possible to companyply with the provisions of Para 32 of the Statutory Scheme.
When the liability became clear a formal numberice as to companyerage under the Act had been sent to the appellant in January 1977 to the effect that the numberification issued by the Central Government applied to the appellant with effect from July 1976 to December 1977 and the Code Number is BR/7 A Cell/1365/88/3445 in respect of the establishment of the appellant.
66,84,930.50 being employers and employees companytribution towards the provident fund from July 1977 to August 1986.
If any excess amount is found due from the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will recover such amount from the petitioner, on the other hand, if any amount is found due to the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner will refund the same.
Now, in case the petitioner is required to pay the employees companytribution for the period from October, 1985 to 3.5.1993, in view of the provisions of paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Scheme, the petitioner will number be able to make deduction of the employees companytribution from the wages of the home workers for the said period.
1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. 1115 of 1990.
The companytesting respondents before the High Court submitted that after the law was settled in P.M. Patel Sons v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 447, there was hardly any scope for litigation regarding applicability of the Act in respect of home workers employed by the appellant through companytractors.
1114 of 1990 and W.J.C. 1115 of 1990 came to be dismissed on August 19, 1992.
The two writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C. No.
An interim stay had been granted by the companyrt during the pendency of the proceeding.
He challenged an order made by the respondents under Section 7 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. LITTTTTTTJ The appellant before us is a manufacturer of beedis.
1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. 1115 of 1990 was questioned in Special Leave Petitions C Nos.
A claim was made by the appellant for waiver from payment of employees companytribution for the period from October 1985 to May 3, 1993 on the ground that he had number been able to companylect the same.
15312 13 of 1992 filed in this Court, the same were dismissed on May 3, 1993 by stating as follows The SLPs are dismissed.
46,90,051/ out of a total demand of Rs.
10538 of 1989 observing that the question involved in the matter companyld be heard and decided in the proceedings pending before the High Court.
But the said claim was disallowed.
403 of 1996.
