(1.) Aggrieved by letter dated 13.05.2014, whereby a direction has been issued to the petitioner to furnish the details of the labourers engaged by him and the details of the contribution deposited by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the notification dated 08.01.2011 submits that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been extended to the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations constituted under subclauses (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Art. 243Q of the Constitution of India and not against the contractors and therefore, the notice dated 13.05.2014 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sahebganj is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner would neither fall in the category of "establishment" nor "employee" as defined in the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council could not have ordered forfeiture of 12% deduction with 13.61% contribution from the security deposit furnished by the petitioner.
(3.) As against the above, Mr. P. Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner submits that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a beneficial provision, intended to extend benefits to the employees. The provision of the Act is applicable to not only the temporary workers but the workers employed by the contractors also. It is further submitted that workers engaged by the petitioner is covered under the definition "employee" under Sec. 2(f) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot escape the liability under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.