GENERAL MANAGER Vs. ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (COMPLIANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL') a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking challenging the impugned order vide Annexure-9 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as 'EPF and M.P. Act.'). In the writ petition while seeking quashing of Annexure-9, the petitioner also requested for a direction to opposite party no.1 to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act. In filing the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged that in spite of its full cooperation to opposite party no.1 and in spite of a clear plea of denial that it has no employee of its own left from purview of the Act and requesting the authority to adjudicate the dispute by calling upon the contractors to find out if any beneficiary is left from being covered under the Act by providing a list of such contractors along with its above request. The authority remain unheeded and passed an Arbitrary and whimsical order. While arguing, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to its reply at Page-19 of the writ petition categorically saying that there are no such casual N.M.Rs. and Contractor employees engaged on or after 01.10.2000 directly for execution of works in the particular division in continuous process. Learned counsel for the petitioner in advancing his argument has also drawn my attention to a correspondence at Page-21 a document furnishing to the opposite party no.1 list of contractors of BSNL, SSA, Sambalpur as appended to therein for enabling it to go for a detail enquiry. In this view of the matter, the petitioner alleged that since the mater was adjudicated following prescription under Section 7-A of the said Act, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no.1 to call upon the contractors as per information provided by the petitioner itself to produce their records and arrived at a conclusion based on materials available on record and since the impugned order is not in consideration of request of the petitioner, the opposite party no.1 has failed in exercising its power as entrusted under Section 7-A of the EPF and M.P. Act.

(2.) Per contra, on its appearance by filing a counter opposite parties apart from trying to justify the order passed under Section 7-A, strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable for availability of a statutory remedy by way of appeal as provided under Section 7-I of the Act. It further submitted that on initiation of the proceeding under Section 7-A, the establishment on their appearance apart from filing their reply following direction of the Provident Fund Authority to come-forward with the details of casual employees engaged through contractors vide Annexures-4 and 8 series as appearing at Pages-25-26 and 38-39 filed only indicating therein that they have not been engaging any casual employees since 2008 and since a duty was casted on the petitioner to establish its own case it could alone proved its case.

(3.) Section 7-A (2)(b) gives the authority the following powers.