SUPER SECURITY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to give provident fund code number to the petitioner-establishment and to quash the circular dated 3-7-98 of the CPFC, New Delhi and also to quash the letter dated 16-9-98 of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under :

(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, and is rendering expert services by providing security guards. In the month of April 1998, the petitioner employed 22 persons and as such it became Establishment within the meaning of Section 1 (3) (b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, ( for short "the Act"). The petitioner applied for allotment of provident fund code number to the Provident Fund Authority on 27-4-1998. No action was taken on this letter by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Ultimately by letter dated 16-9-98 (Annexure "E"), the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat, intimated the petitioner that on the basis of present instruction, provident fund code number cannot be allotted to the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that since the petitioner applied for allotment of provident fund code number on 27-4-98 i.e. prior to the circular dated 3-7-98, provident fund code number should have been allotted and there has been discrimination, in asmuch as, provident fund code number has been allotted to other similar establishments who are providing security services.

(3.) In the first counter affidavit of the Provident Fund Commissioner, the stand of the respondent has been that the petitioner though technically is an establishment within the meaning of Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act, but his establishment is that of contractor and as such no provident fund code number can be allotted to a contractor. Reliance has also been placed upon the circular dated 3-7-98, issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization to all the Regional Offices that the practice of allotment of provident fund code number to contractors is discouraged and discontinued.