LIABILITY OF REGISTERED CONTRACTORS HAVING INDEPENDENT CODE NUMBER CAN'T BE FASTENED UPON PRINCIPLE EMPLOYER. [EPF Apellate Tribunal].

M/s. Human Development Foundation v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, ATA No. 319(10) 013, decided on 01st April, 2016. 

An appeal was filed by the appellant before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order dated 14th August, 2012, passed by the EPF Authority, under Section 7-A of the Act. The EPF Appellate Tribunal observed that the EPF Authority passed the impugned order without following the due procedure of law. Despite having information that employees concerned are contractors' employees, the EPF Authority neither joined those contractors nor summoned the concerned employees, without considering that contractors registered with department are 'independent employers' and their employees cannot be treated to be employees of the principal employer. Liability of unregistered contractors would fall on the principal employer in view of Clause. 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 but not in the case of registered contractors. Hence, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back for fresh consideration and for passing a speaking order by identifying the beneficiaries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------AN ORDER PASSED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. [EPF Appellate Tribunal].
M/s. Cello Sales and Marketing v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ATA No. 184(5) 2015, decided on 31st March, 2016.

An appeal was filed by the appellant before the employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order dated 17th May, 2013 and 17th October, 2014, passed by the EPF Authority, under Sections. 7-A and 7-B of the Act. The EPF Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant was making due compliance of the Act. Impugned order dated 17th May, 2013 was passed on the basis of report of Enforcement Officer that appellant was taking shelter of various allowances to hide Provident Fund liability. EPF Authority passed its order without finding the nature of allowances, without conducting proper enquiry and without enforcing attendance of any of the employees. Object of the Act is not to gather money to meet pre-conceived targets but to collect fund for welfare of the workmen to be identified, once they superannuate. EPF Authority has not carried out its legal obligation since it has not given proper opportunity of being heard, not provided a fair and transparent procedure and applied its mind for disposing the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. Hence, appeal is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. EPF Authority is directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the appellant, with interest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAMAGES IMPOSED UNDER SECTION. 14-B ARE WAIVEABLE BUT NOT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION. 7-Q OF THE EPF ACT. [EPF Appellate Tribunal].

Shree Hanuman Prasad Poddar Andh Vidyalay v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, ATA No. 761 (14) 2015, decided on 31st March, 2016.

An appeal was filed by the appellant before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order dated 09th June, 2015, passed by the EPF Authority, under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act. The EPF Appellate Tribunal observed that the delay in depositing the EPF dues, as determined by the EPF Authority, could not be paid by the EPF Authority, could not be paid by the appellant since the matter was pending adjudication in respect of applicability of the Act. During the pendency of litigation, the EPF Authority did not make any effort to get vacated the stay order. Appellant was having a stay order passed by the Court in his favour due to which he did not deposit the EPF dues. The appellant is a registered society running a charitable institution for the welfare of the blind, dependent upon donations from the government and certain people of the society. Hence, damages imposed under Section. 14-B of the Act are waived but the interest imposed under Section. 7-Q of the Act could not be waived and the same would be deposited by the appellant within one month. Appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the Appellate Tribunal to that extent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------