Writ Petition No. 18586 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Mr.P.Adinarayana AND The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, 21-48/18, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and 2 others ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.18586 of 2011
O R D E R:
Petitioner is a contractor, engaged in the business of supply of manpower various establishments, including Government departments. The petitioner was registered with the office of the Labour Office under Sec.12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation Labour Abolition) Act, 1970. In the course of business, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent in the year 2001 for supplying certain persons, as required by the 2nd respondent. The agreement was initially for a period of one year and thereafter, fresh agreement was being entered into every year with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was issued a notice under Sec.7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 01.06.2011 with regard to non- enrollment of its employees under EPF membership. It is this notice, which the petitioner has impugned in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no liability under the Act, as he is merely acting as an Agent of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent, who is the principal employer, alone is responsible under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that notices have been issued even to the 2nd respondent and enquiry is yet to be concluded against the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, and it is only thereafter, final decision would be taken as to whether the petitioner is liable or not. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that enquiry is still pending against the petitioner, and therefore, he can raise all the grounds as raised in the present writ petition before the Authority under Sec.7A of the Act, who will decide the case of the petitioner on merits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that only an enquiry notice has been issued to the petitioner to find out as to whether he is liable under the provisions of the Act or not.
Operative part
Till completion of enquiry, the liability of the petitioner cannot be fixed. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Let the enquiry be held against the petitioner to find out as to whether he is liable under the provisions of the Act or not. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds, as raised in the present writ petition, before the Authority under Sec.7A of the Act. No order as to costs. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J Dated: 27.02.2012 Dsr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Labour Abolition Act, 1970; Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — s. 7A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.