BSNL, ROURKELA Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners challenge the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.04.2010/01.06.2010 (Annexure -3) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (opposite party no.1) under Section 7 -A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (in short 'the Act') so also the order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure -5) passed by opposite party no.1 directing the petitioners' Banker, Union Bank of India -opposite party no.3 to attach the bank account of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners' case as averred in the writ petition runs as under :

(3.) IT is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that for the first time opposite party no.1 issued notice to the petitioners not for assessment of the petitioner's establishment but for determination of the liabilities of the contractors, who are independent establishments and had been allotted with PF code numbers by the Provident Fund Authorities. The PF code numbers were supplied to the contractors basing upon the information supplied by them to the PF authorities. It is submitted that in case the contractors mislead the PF authorities with regard to the number of employees or the date of coverage, the authorities are empowered to issue notice to the contractors under Section 7 -A of the Act to decide the applicability of the Act and to determine the amount due from the employer (contractors). The PF authorities are bound by law to conduct enquiry under Section 7 -A of the Act after issuing due notice to the contractors and that despite the names and addresses of the contractors having been furnished to the PF authorities, no notice was issued to the contractors by the authorities and no enquiry was held against them and as such opposite party no.1 has committed grave illegality in saddling the petitioners with the dues which the contractors are liable to pay and as such the impugned order is vitiated. It is also contended that the assessment/determination of the amount done in the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement in paragraph -29(3) of the E.P.F. Scheme,1952. It is submitted that the contractors were only competent to show as to basic wages and other allowances paid to their employees and that without issuing notice to the contractors the assessment has been made on mere guess work and approximation, which is wholly uncalled for.