BENGALURU URBAN , BENGALURU RURAL AND RAMANAGAR DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD . (BAMUL) Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Bangalore (Urban), Bangalore (Rural) and Ramana-gara Districts Co-operative Milk Producers' Society (for short hereinafter referred to as 'BAMUL') state that it entered into an agreement with respondents No.4 and 5 for supply of labourers and issued work orders. As per the agreement, the Contractors have agreed to pay and remit all the statutory contributions, deductions, etc. But the respondents No. 4 and 5 did not stand on the agreement which resulted in duos in contribution on behalf of the employees. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have initiated action against respondents No. 4 and 5 and an order was passed to pay Rs. 24,97,591 as per Annexure-A dated 23rd April 2004; and Annexure-B dated 16th March 2006, in which the interest portion of Rs. 11,59,814 was added. Since Respondents No.4 and 5 failed to pay the contribution, then attachment order was issued against the petitioners and in respect of the same, Writ petition in No. 4616 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners taking the principal ground that they were not parties and hence the attachment is bad in law. Consequently, writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner prefer an appeal. Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal in No. 1806 of 2006 and thereafter the same was withdrawn by order dated 31.01.2007 seeking liberty to file review petition. Accordingly, review was filed and by order dated 03rd Sept. 2007, the proceedings initiated against respondents No. 4 and 5 were dropped and liberty was reserved to re-assess the claim. Review petition came to allowed in which the liability was fixed on respondents No. 4 and 5. Since they have not paid the amount, liability was fixed on the petitioner, since he is the principal employer, as per Annexure-L. Hence, this petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents No.4 and 5 which prevail and as per the agreement, they should pay the contribution and not the petitioner and accordingly, passing the attachment order Annexure-L is bad in law. He further submits that both the respondents No.4 and 5 are no more available for the petitioner to recover from them. Accordingly, it is for the respondents No. 1 to 3 to recover it from respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) The learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 submits to dismiss the petition. Being the principal employer of respondents No. 4 and 5, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the contribution and hence there is no error committed by the respondents. Though the order has been passed against respondents No. 4 and 5 for payment and since the petitioner is the principal employer, as per the provisions of Provident Fund Act, the attachment order Annexure-L has been passed.