SKNASIRUDDINBEEDI MERCHANTLTD Vs. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to waiver in respect deposit of the employees' contribution for the period from October, 1985 to 3-5-1983, during which period the petitioner could not and did not make deduction from the wage, of the home-workers employed through contractors for manufacture of beedi because of pendency of litigation on the question of applicability of the provision of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act') in respect of the home- workers employed by the contractors.

(2.) The petitioner is a limited company having its headquarter at Calcutta, which carries on business of manufacture and trade of Beedi. After receipt of the notice under the provision of the Act from the respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the petitioner challenged the notice in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988, contending, inter alia, that the provision of the Act has no application in respect of the home- workers, who were engaged for rolling Beedis by the independent contractors. Interim stay was granted by this court pending disposal of the writ petition. This court, however, by judgment and order passed on 27-7-1989 dismissed the said writ petition, holding that the provision of the Act was applicable in respect of the home workers engaged in for rolling the Beedi of the petitioner through the contractors. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment of this court in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 10538 of 1989. After dismissal of the writ petition, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner calculated and determined the petitioner's liability on account of employees provident fund and by memo dated 15-1-1990 a'sked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 66,84,930.50 being the employer's and employees' contribution to the Employees, Provident fund for the period from July 1977 to August, 1986. By another order dated 18-12-1989, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 28,72,383.85 within fifteen days on account of employer's and employees' contribution to the provident fund for the period from September, 1986 to February, 1988.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid demands in this court in C.W.J.C. No. 114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 1990, respectively, contending that the home workers rolling the Beedi out of raw material supplied by the petitioner were employed by the independent contractors and the petitioner-company was not the employer of those home workers within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. In the meantime, the Supreme Court by order dated 22-8-1989 disposed of S.L.P. No. 10538 of 1989, preferred against the judgment of this court dated 27-7-1989 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988, with the observation that the question involved therein could be heard and decided in the pending C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 1990. A Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 19-8-1992 dismissed C.W.J.C No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 1990. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 46,90,051/- out of the total demand of Rs. 95,57,314.35, was realised by the respondent No. 2, the Provident Fund Commissioner by coercive process. The petitioner filed S.L.P. No. 15312-13/92 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the judgement of this court dated 19-8-1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1114 of 1990 and C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 1990. Some other establishment/company also moved the Supreme Court on identical questions. The Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. by the order dated 3-5-1993 on the following terms: