Case file of M/s Brakes
India Ltd vs The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (PF dues of contractor)
Dear All,
Please find below please find below
the judgment of Madras high court, where the high court has held that Provident
Fund dues of contractor with independent code cannot be recovered from the
principal employer.
************* *************** *****************
RESERVED ON: 29.01.2015
DELIVERED ON: 06.02.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
MADRAS
DATED : 06-02-2015
CORAM
THE
Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.391
of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
M/s
Brakes India Ltd.,
(Brakes
Division),
Sholinghur
- 631 102
rep
by its Vice-President (Pers & HRD)
... Petitioner
vs
The
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Sub
Regional Office,
31,Filter
Bed Road,vellore
rep
by its Regoinal Provident Fund Commisioner
...Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this
court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
connected with impugned order ref No.TN/VLR/38789/SDC/2013 dated 26.12.2013 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct that the
respondent shall not have a right to proceed against the petitioner under
section 14B of the PF Act.
For petitioner :Mr.Sanjay Mohan for
M/s S. Ramasubramanian Associates
For respondent :Mrs.V.J. Latha
ORDER
The petitioner Company has filed the
above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus to call for
the records connected with impugned order ref No.TN/VLR/38789/SDC/2013 dated
26.12.2013 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct that the
respondent shall not have a right to proceed against the petitioner under
section 14B of the PF Act.
2. The brief case of the petitioner
is as follows:
(a) According to the petitioner
Company, in the course of its business, it engages various Contractors to carry
out non-perennial work, who, in turn, employed various persons to carry out the
work. The petitioner Company is a Principal Employer and the Contractors,
wherever required, have obtained licences and are Licensed Contractors under
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioner
Company is registered with the Provident Fund Authorities and has a separate
"exempted trust" under P.F. Code No.TN/4725.
(b) One A. Govindaraj, a Licenced
Contractor has been doing certain contract work for the petitioner Company, as
and when required since 1995. Insofar as the Petitioner Company is concerned,
the Contractor would supply labour, as was required by the Petitioner Company.
The Contractor was given certain civil works to be done inside the Factory. The
said Contractor employed 15 to 20 contract workmen inside the petitioner's
factory and the Petitioner Company never employed the Contractor continuously.
(c) The contractor applied for a
separate P.F. Code number under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, and the same was allotted to him on 10.1.2003 with the
Code No.TN/VL/38789 with retrospective coverage from 25.9.1995.
(d) The Contractor had been deducting
the employees share from December 2002 onwards and has been remitting it along
with employer's share of contribution to the P.F authorities.
(e) The Petitioner Company learnt
that based on the report of the Enforcement Squad, Regional Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, the Sub Regional Office, Vellore, initiated proceedings
under Sec.7-A against the Contractor and the Contractor was directed to produce
all the records pertaining to wage payment relating to workmen from April 1995
to November 2002 and the petitioner Company was informed that the said
Contractor had given a statement that an amount of Rs.9,66,333/- was payable as
contributions and that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also deposited by the
said Contractor during March 2004 and the balance of Rs.8,66,333/- on 22nd July
2004.
(f) The petitioner Company also
learnt that a letter dated 16.8.2004 was received by the Contractor from the
P.F. Authorities, wherein, it has been stated that the coverage for the
establishment of the Contractor was advanced from 25.9.1995 to 1.6.1994 and a
Show Cause Notice dated 30.8.2004 was issued under Sec.14 of the Act for
prosecuting the Contractor. Further, the PF Authorities granted 15 days time to
the contractor to pay the amount or on his default, had directed the petitioner
Company to pay the amount.
(g) On 31.8.2004 the petitioner
Company received a letter calling upon them to pay the amount within three days
as against the period of 15 days granted under the letter dated 30.8.2004. As
no amount was payable by the Petitioner Company to the contractor, a letter was
also sent to the Authorities dated 6.9.2004, informing them that there was no
dues payable by the petitioner Company to the Contractor as per the books of
the petitioner. Subsequently, the contract with that Contractor, came to an end
in October 2004 and was not renewed thereafter.
(h) The petitioner Company was never
a party to the proceedings nor was aware of the same. The respondent had
thereafter assessed the amount payable under Section
14B and Section 7-Q at Rs.28,61,326/-. In none of the
proceedings, the petitioner Company was made as a party and it was not aware of
the proceedings except when the Contractor had approached the Petitioner
Company for an advance after having suffered an order under Sec.7-A. The
petitioner Company received a Notice under Section 8-F dated
23.2.2005, calling upon the petitioner to withhold any amount that may be
payable to the said Contractor and pay over the same to the respondent.
(i) By letter dated 25.2.2005, the
respondent informed the petitioner that under Sec.8-A, the petitioner would
also be liable for payment of the amounts as damages and interest and
non-payment would amount to "default" and directing the petitioner
Company to pay the amount immediately to the respondent,
(j) Challenging the impugned order
passed by the respondent, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing two
writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7776 and 7777 of 2005 and this Court, while admitting
those Writ Petitions, granted an order of Interim Stay. On 25.2.2010, this Court
allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the impugned order.
(k) On 28.10.2011, the respondent
issued a Show Cause Notice under Sec.14 B of the PF Act calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why damages should not be imposed upon the petitioner.
This was followed by a Notice cum levy order dated 31.10.2011. The petitioner,
in their reply dated 12.6.2012, has stated that the proceedings under Sec.14 B
of the Act is not maintainable and this Court had already quashed the
proceedings and had given liberty to the respondent to proceed against the
legal heirs of the Contractor. It was also stated in the reply that the said
Contractor is an independent employer, having separate PF Code and the
petitioner is not liable for any default by the Contractor. In these
circumstances, the petitioner Company has filed the above writ petition to
quash the order dated 26.12.2013.
3. The brief case of the respondent
is as follows:
(a) According to the respondent, as
per the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act, any person employed
directly or through a contractor falls within the meaning of 'employee' and
both the Principal employer and the Contractor are jointly and severally
legally responsible for non-compliance of the Scheme provisions.
(b) Therefore, an employee, even if
engaged through or by a contractor explicitly falls under the meaning of
'employee' for the purpose of the EPF and allied Schemes and the statutory
contributions / administrative charges in respect of such employees ought to be
remitted in time by the employer/contractor.
(c) The allotment of code numbers to
the contractors is meant for administrative convenience only for facilitating
remittance and accounting of the contributions etc., and in case of any default
by the Contractor, the principal employer is also liable for action and he
cannot absolve himself of his responsibilities under the Act.
(d) As per paragraph 30 of Clause (2)
of the EPF Scheme shows that in respect of empoyees employed, by or through a
contractor, "the contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such
employee in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution so deducted
together with an equal amount of contribution in this Scheme referred to as the
employer's contribution and also administrative charges".
(e) In terms of Clause (3) of
paragraph 30, it is the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both
the contributions payable by himself in respect of the employees directly
employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor
and also administrative charges.
(f) According to the respondent, the
proceedings under Sec.7(A) of the Act is meant for assessment of dues
payable in respect of workers. It is a quasi-judicial inquiry and the officer,
who is conducting such enquiry, is the sole authority to decide upon whom to be
summoned. The mere fact that the principal employer viz., the petitioner was
not summoned for Sec.7A inquiry cannot have the effect of nullifying the
statutory responsibilities casted upon the petitioner Company.
4. In these circumstances, the
respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that since the contractor was allotted a separate
PF Code number, the petitioner Company is not liable to pay any amount to the
respondent. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
since this Court had already allowed the writ petitions in WP Nos.7776 and
7777/2005, giving liberty to the respondent to initiate appropriate recovery
proceedings as against the legal heirs of the contractor, the respondent cannot
initiate proceedings against the petitioner Company. The learned counsel
further submitted that the present proceedings, which was initiated against the
petitioner Company after a lapse of several years, is liabe to be set aside.
6. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
(i) CDJ 1992 BHC 198 (K.T. Rolling
Mills Pvt Ltd vs R.M. Gandhi and Others), wherein the Bombay High Court has
held as follows:
19. In the instant case, the delay is
8 to 17 years. There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay from the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. There is nothing to show how this case
remained unattended for such a long time and how it suddenly came to surface
except the plea that no period of limitation being provided in the law, action
may be taken at any time".
(ii) (2012) LLR 22 ( Group
4 Securitas Guarding Ltd vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
& ors), wherein the High Court of Delhi held that " a separate PF Code
number is for direct compliance of the provisions of the Act and it is allotted
only to the employees and not to the contractors. Therefore, the clients cannot
be termed as principal employer as security guards provided by Company".
(iii) 2012 LLR 702 (The Madurai
District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd rep by its Special Officer vs
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation), wherein this court has held in the
case of a separate code number was allotted, the employees of the contractor,
by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be employees of the principal
employer, but as rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the liability of unregistered contractors, would fall on the petitioner, in
view of clause 30 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
Further this Court has held that
"
with respect to the contractors, who
are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code
number, they are to be treated as "independent employer. The petitioner,
therefore, cannot be treated to be "principal employer"for the
purposes of those contractors".
7. Countering the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.V.J. Latha, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that earlier writ petitions were allowed on the ground
that the petitioner herein was not a party before the respondent and therefore,
the order passed by the respondent was set aside. According to the learned
counsel for the respondent, the order passed by this Court in WP Nos.7776 and
7777 of 2005 shall not have any binding on the present order passed by the
respondent.
8. Further, the learned counsel
submitted that as per Sec.2(f) of the Act, an employee, even if engaged through
or by a contractor explicitly falls under the meaning of 'employee' for the
purpose of the EPF and allied Schemes and the statutory
contributions/administrative charges in respect of such employees ought to be
remitted in time by the employer/contractor.
9. The learned counsel relied on paragraph-30
of Clause-3 of the EPF Scheme and submitted that the responsibility of the
Principal employer to pay both the contributions payable by himself in respect
of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees
employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges.
10. On a careful consideration of the
materials, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the
judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in
dispute that one A. Govindaraj is a licenced Contractor and he employed about
15 to 20 contract workmen inside the petitioner factory for doing certain civil
work.
11. Earlier, the petitioner Company
was not made a party and in their absence, proceedings were initiated against
the Contractor and the petitioner Company came to know about the proceedings
only when the Contractor contacted for an advance after having suffered to an
order under Sec.7-A. The petitioner Company received a Notice
under Section 8-F dated 23.2.2005, calling upon the petitioner to
withhold any amount that may be payable to the said Contractor and pay over the
same to the respondent.
12. On 25.2.2005, the petitioner
Company sent a reply stating that no amounts were payable to the contractor by
them. After receiving the reply dated 25.2.2005 on 26.2.2005, the respondent
informed the petitioner that under Sec.8-A, the petitioner would also be liable
for payment of the amounts as damages and interest and non-payment would amount
to "default" and directing the petitioner Company to pay the amount
immediately to the respondent.
13. Challenging the order passed by
the respondents, the petitioner Company filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos
7778 and 7777 of 2005 before this Court and this Court, while admitting the
writ petition, granted an order of interim stay and thereafter, on 25.2.2010,
after hearing all the parties, this Court allowed the writ petition, giving
liberty to the respondent to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against
the legal heirs of the Contractor in accordance with law.
14. After dismissal of those writ
petitions, the respondent, by their letter dated 12.10.2010 requested the
petitioner to inform the details of the legal heirs of the Contractor. On
24.11.2010, the petitioner Company informed the details of the legal heirs of
the contractor.
15. On 28.10.2011, the respondent
issued a Show Cause Notice under Sec.14 B of the PF Act, calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why damages should not be imposed upon the petitioner
Company. Such Notice was followed by a Notice cum levy order dated 31.10.2011.
Thereafter also, the petitioner received some more notices from the Department.
16. The petitioner Company sent their
reply on 12.6.2012 stating that the fresh proceedings under Sec.14 B of PF Act
is not maintainable and also stated that the Contractor is an independent
employer having separate PF Code and the petitioner is not liable for any
defult by the contractor.
17. This court in the judgment
reported in 2012 LLR 702 (The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd
rep by its Special Officer vs Employees' Provident Fund Organisation),
cited supra has clearly held that with respect to the contractors, who are
registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number,
they are to be treated as "independent employer".
18. In the case on hand, the
Contractor was allotted with EPF allotment number vide No.TN/VLR/38789/SDC/2013
in the year 2003 itself. As per the ratio laid down in the judgment of this
Court, the Contractor viz., Mr.A. Govindaraj should be treated as an independent
employer.
19. That apart, when this Court had
already set aside the orders passed by the respondent in WP Nos.7776 and 7777
of 2005 and gave liberty to the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings as
against the legal heirs of the contractor viz., Mr.A. Govindaraj, the present
proceedings initiated againsts the petitioner Company cannot stand.
20. That apart, the respondent has
not challenged the order passed by this Court in those writ petitions.
Therefore, the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions have become
final.
21. In the absence of any appeal
having been filed by the respondent against the observations made in those writ
petitions, the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner
Company under Sec.14 B of the Act cannot stand and it is liable to be set
aside.
22. The reasoning of the respondent
interpreting the order of this Court made in the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7776
and 7777 of 2005 is erroneous and this Court has given liberty to the respondents
only to proceed against the legal heirs of the contractor. If this Court was of
the opinion that the proceedings can be initiated against the Petitioner
Company also, this court would have given such liberty to the respondent to
proceed against the petitioner Company, which was not given in the writ
petition. Therefore, the interpretation of the respondent with respect to the
observation of the writ petitions cannot stand.
23. It is pertinent to note that this
Court is not sitting on an appeal over the orders passed in WP Nos.7776 and
7777 of 2005 or on review of the orders passed in those writ petitions.
24. Following the ratio laid down and
the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
considered view that the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 on the file of the
respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.
25. In the result, the writ petition
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Mp is closed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment