1. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the respondent Commissioner as well as the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeal of the petitioner challenging the order of the respondent Commissioner was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institution was assigned the responsibility to implement certain project in 102 villages of Jamnagar block and for the same around 12 field workers and one supervisor were engaged. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the present petitioner was not employer of the aforesaid field workers and supervisor, the respondent demanded from the petitioner to deposit the provident fund contribution in respect to the said persons. The respondent therefore initiated inquiry under section 7A of the Act. The Commissioner directed the petitioner institution to deposit the amount of contribution qua the said field workers and the supervisor within 15 days from the receipt of the impugned order failing which action as prescribed under the Rules shall be initiated. The petitioner therefore preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the same was rejected. Hence the present petition is preferred.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents failed to appreciate the fact that the filed workers and the supervisor were engaged for the project which was of the Government and as an NGO the said project was assigned to the petitioner. He submitted that the salary was paid by the Government and similar service rules as applicable to the Government Servants were applicable to the said workers. He further submitted that the liability or responsibility of P.F dues if any arises, the same shall be of the Government and not the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that the petitioner had not produced any document before the Tribunal to prove the staff strength and even otherwise under the EPF Act there is no distinction between casual and permanent employees. The Tribunal in para 6 of the order has in detail discussed the reasons for rejecting the appeal. The Commissioner has observed that the employees engaged in CBR project were working in connection with the main work of the establishment i.e. 'helping the persons with disabilities in the society'. The impugned orders are just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. No other ground or reason is shown so as to take a contrary view.
5. In the premises aforesaid, petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top