TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act']. 3.The petitioner availed the services of three security agencies, i.e., Victory Security service, Loyal Security Service and Jayam/Sward Security Service. 4.All the security agencies are independent establishment, carrying on business of providing security service to various establishments. 5.The Victory Security Service and Loyal Security service are registered under the Act, and allotted code No.TN/42886 and TN/29536 respectively. 6.The case of the petitioner is that the code number is allotted only to an independent establishment, and that petitioner has no legal obligation to pay the contributio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty of the principal employer to recover the contribution, i.e. employer and employees share and deposit it with the Provident Fund Commissioner. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, recovery of contribution qua the Jayam/Sward Security Service from the petitioner is upheld, and the petitioner is directed to deposit the contribution within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 12.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged, the notice of demand with respect to contribution payable by other two security agencies, on the ground that once these contractors were allotted independent code number, the liability could not be fixed, on the petitioner, being an exempted establishment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et of the scheme. He is then obliged to set up a trust and maintain the accounts of his employees. Such a literal construction, therefore, naturally leads to the conclusion that the contractors are within the mischief of the scheme. Not having obtained any exemption within the meaning of Sec.17 of the Act, they (the Contractors) are still covered by the scheme and obliged to obtain separate code numbers under the Act and the scheme and deposit the contributions with the authorities under the Act. (Page 540 Para;11) 14.The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends, that this judgment will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner, as an order passed under section 7A, which has attained finality, the petitioner was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployer' for the purposes of those contractors. The impugned part of the order, under section 7-A, is also under challenge before this court and not only the executory order, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. 20.In view of the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of Patna High Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, deserves to be accepted. The liability with respect to the contractors registered and having independent code cannot be fastened on the petitioner. 21.The writ petition is partly allowed, and the impugned part of order passed under section 7-A, as also executory order, fixing liability of security agencies having independent code i.e. Victory security service and Loy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
