PATHANKOT JANTA COOPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY IRRIGATION PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seeks for quashing of the order dated 22.09.1998 (Annexure P-4) issued by the 3rd respondent, who is the Executive Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam, conveying the fact of assessment of liability of Rs.25,43,432/- as the employer's provident fund contribution under Section 7-A of the EPF Act of 1952 under the orders of the Provident Fund (PF) Commissioner, Amritsar. Following the communication in the manner of settling the bills of various contractors employed by the chief functionaries of Ranjit Singh Dam (R.S.Dam), Shahpurkandi, amounts were sought to be deducted from out of the payments of the contractors. In a tender notice which was subsequently issued, the R.S. Dam declared that only those contractors, who had EPF allotment code or exemption certificate by the EPF Commissioner would be allowed to participate in the tender.

(2.) THE 1 st petitioner, who was admittedly one of the contractors for some of the works undertaken by R.S. Dam, is aggrieved against the recoveries made while settling some of the bills and challenges the letter issued by the 3rd respondent to the other officers of the R.S. Dam for effecting the recoveries.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners points out to the fact that under Section 1(3) of the EPF Act, the establishment that will be governed by the provisions shall only be such establishment which employ 20 or more persons of the classes mentioned in the notification in the official gazette. This Section is subjected to Section 16 of the Act which sets out the minimum number of employees as 50 instead of 20 in case of cooperative societies. THE contention on behalf of the 1st petitioner, who was a contractor under R.S. Dam project is a Cooperative Society and it is exempted from the provisions of the Act and recoveries shall not become possible from the petitioners. At a more fundamental level, the objection is that the petitioners had not been at any point of time involved in the adjudication made by the 4th respondent with reference to the liability under the Act and, therefore, the recovery which is sought to be made on the basis of an order which was passed behind the back shall not be tenable in law.