2026 LLR 206
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Devashis Baruah, J.
WP(C) 7853/2016, Dt/– 2-12-2025
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
v.
The Central Board of Trustees and 2 Ors.
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND – Liability of principal employer to pay EPF dues with respect to the contractors' workers – Orders passed by the EPFO for assessing dues under section 7A of the EPF Act have been challenged – It was contended that the assessment orders are without identification of beneficiaries and it could not have been done under section 7A of the EPF Act – The names of the contractors were disclosed by the petitioner before the respondent authorities – Held, paragraph 30 of the EPF Scheme casts a responsibility/obligation upon the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect to the employees directly employed by him or through a contractor – Under section 7A(2) of the EPF Act, the respondent authorities have been conferred with the power to ascertain who are the beneficiaries taking into account the names of the contractors as have been furnished by the petitioner – The petitioner, in view of paragraph 30 of the EPF Scheme, is liable to make payments as determined – The respondent authorities should initiate enquiry so as to identify the beneficiaries and accordingly deposit the payments – Writ petitions are disposed of. Paras 9 to 14
For Petitioner: Ms. J. Phukan, Mr. B. Pathak, Mr. P. Dey, Mr. B.C. Pathak and Mr. R. Thadani, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Nag, Ms. M.G. Biswas, Ms. M. Dutta, Mr. SA Chakraborty and Mr. P.K. Roy, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Note: This judgment is still relevant as the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 will continue to remain in force till a year after the notification of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
JUDGMENT and ORDER (Oral)
Devashis Baruah, J.–1. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Nag, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. In the present batch of three writ petitions before this Court, the Petitioner has assailed the orders of assessment carried out under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952').
3. The sole ground on which the Petitioner has assailed the respective assessment orders is that without identification of the beneficiaries, the Respondent Authorities could not have carried out the assessment in terms with section 7A of the Act of 1952.
4. Taking into account that the issues involved in all the three writ petitions are common, this Court takes up all the three writ petitions together for disposal by this common judgment and order.
5. In WP (C) No. 7853/2016, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 30-06-2016 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs. 1,87,743/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.
6. In WP (C) No. 2717/2020, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 16-12-2019 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 7A of the Act of 1952 thereby determining that the Petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 29,771/- in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.
7. In WP (C) No. 1198/2021, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17-09-2020 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of Powers under section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs. 10,46,976/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.
8. The materials on record as well as a perusal of the impugned orders in the three writ petitions clearly show that the Petitioner through certain contractors, the names of such contractors which were disclosed by the Petitioner before the Respondent Authorities, engaged various workers. The names of the contractors and the details of the payment so made admittedly is available with the Respondent Authorities as would be seen from the materials on record. The question which has been urged by the Petitioner in the instant batch of writ petitions is that without identifying the beneficiaries, the Petitioner cannot be burdened with an assessment carried out under section 7A of the Act of 1952.
9. The answer to the dispute raised in the present batch of writ petitions is available at Paragraph No. 30 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short ‘the Scheme of 1952') whereby a responsibility/obligation is casted upon the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect to the employees directly employed by him and also in respect to employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. Paragraph No. 30 of the said Scheme of 1952 being relevant is reproduced herein under:
“ 30. Payment of contributions .—(1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution).
(2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution) and shall pay to the principal employer the amount of member's contribution so deducted together with an equal amount of contribution (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also administrative charges.
(3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges.
Explanation .—For the purposes of this paragraph the expression “administrative charges” means such percentage of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Board and having regard to the resources of the Fund for meeting its normal administrative expenses, fix.”
10. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of section 7A of the Act of 1952 which empowers the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the amount due from any employer under any provisions of the Act of 1952, the Scheme of 1952 or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme as the case may be.
11. It is further seen from sub-section (2) of section 7A of the Act of 1952 that the designated Officials as described in sub-section (1) of section 7A of the Act of 1952 have been endowed with the power to conduct enquiry and in that regard, powers vested upon a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trying the suit have been conferred. It includes such powers such as enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses.
12. It is the opinion of this Court that on the basis of the said power under section 7A(2) of the Act of 1952, the Respondent Authorities have been conferred with the power to ascertain who are the beneficiaries taking into account that the names of the contractors are available as have been furnished by the Petitioner.
13. Taking into account the above aspects, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed have no merit inasmuch as the Petitioner in view of Paragraph 30 of the Scheme of 1952 as quoted hereinabove is liable to make the payments as have been determined vide the impugned orders. It is the further opinion of this Court that appropriate directions therefore should be passed thereby directing the Petitioner to deposit the amounts determined in the impugned orders within a time frame and further directing the Respondent Authorities to cause enquiry so that the beneficiaries can be identified and the deposits so made by the Petitioner are disbursed to the beneficiaries.
14. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The challenge to the order dated 30-06-2016 in WP (C) No. 7853/2016 do not call for any interference.
(ii) The challenge to the order dated 16-12-2019 in WP (C) No. 2717/2020 do not call for any interference.
(iii) The challenge to the order dated 17-09-2020 in WP (C) No. 1198/2021 do not call for any interference.
(iv) The Petitioner herein is directed to deposit the said amount as determined in the impugned orders challenged in the instant batch of writ petitions within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the present judgment.
(v) The Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall upon deposit of the said amounts within the time as mentioned hereinabove carry out necessary exercise in terms with section 7A of the Act of 1952 to identify the beneficiaries and upon identification, disburse the amounts to the beneficiaries.
(vi) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.