BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the WP(C) No.66/2009 and WP(C) No.2214/2010. Mr. M.R. Das, the learned Counsel appears in the WP(C) NO.3805/2008. For the respondents Mr. D. Dey and Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appears for the Regional Provident Fund (PF) Commissioner and others.

(2.) These three cases arise out of the proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the PF Act"). In the WP(C) No.66/2009, the BSNL authorities challenge the order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-9) of the Asstt. P.F. Commissioner (ENF), whereby the assessment of the P.F. dues was done without identifying the beneficiaries under the contractors, but by specifying the names of 22 contractors in the assessment order. Here the P.F. dues payable under Section 7A and penal interest calculated under Section 7Q of the P.F. Act were assessed and the BSNL authorities were directed to deposit the assessed amount with the P.F. authorities. In the WP(C) No.2214/2010, the petitioner challenge the direction given to the Silchar Branch Manager of the Indian Bank on 30.3.2010 (Annexure-3) by the Recovery Officer, whereby the bank was directed to pay the Certificate amount to the Regional P.F. Commissioner. In the WP(C) No.3805/2008, similar direction of the Asstt. P.F. Commissioner issued on 1.8.2008 (Annexure-VIII) to the Tezpur Branch Manager of the Indian Bank to remit the statutory dues under the P.F. Act form the bank account of the assessed establishment, is challenged.

(3.) At the very outset it is relevant to note that assessment in each of these cases relate to the P.F. benefits payable for the employees under the contractors and in all the cases, the payable amount was assessed by the P.F. Commissioner without identifying the beneficiaries.