Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.1 Representing the authorities under the EPF Act, Mr. PK Roy, learned counsel submits that the EPF Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the primary concern of his client is the financial benefits to be reached to the employees of the covered establishments. On the issue of voluntary coverage under the EPF Act under Sub Section (4) of Section 1, the counsel submits that none of the petitioners have so far applied under this provision and if they do apply under Sub Section(4), the same will certainly be considered. 6.2 Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the WP(C) No.6464/2010, advocate Mr. PK Roy submits that compliance with the provisions of the EPF Act can be ensured by bringing all the employees under the contractors within single umbrella code under the principal employer, as was done for the Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (BRPL) (now amalgamated with the IOC) and if this system is followed in the IOC, the contractors need not provide individual PF Codes and yet the employees under the contractor can be assured of the benefits under the EPF Act, through the umbrella code of the principal employer.

8. Keeping the above ratio in Michigan Rubber (Supra) in mind, if we examine the contract clause specifying furnishing of the PF Code by the intending tenderer, it can be easily inferred that such stipulation is neither arbitrary nor it is contrary to public interest. In fact many contractors with less than 20 employees under their establishment have procured the PF Code and therefore it cannot also be said that these conditions are intended to keep out any class of contractors. Furthermore, the EPF Act itself provide a mechanism for voluntary coverage under Section 1(4) and the petitioners if interested to work for IOC, can certainly exercise this option. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to consider the requirement of providing PF Code by the intending tenderers to be arbitrary or unreasonable and this issue is accordingly answered in favour of the tendering authority.

12. The petitioners are concerned that even for temporary works or for engagement of floating employees on work to work basis, they may be fastened with perennial obligation of PF contribution for this class of non-permanent employees. Addressing this concern, it may be appropriate now to consider whether there is any legal basis for such apprehension. The Clause 2(f) of the EPF Scheme defines excluded employee and under Clause 30A of the Scheme, an employer can submit nil return when no recoveries are made from the employees for a given period. This concept of excluded employee under the EPF Scheme obviously deals with situation where the employees are not under the permanent rolls of the employer and are floating employees engaged on work to work basis. Obviously, when the contractor does not have work and does not employ any one, a nil return can be submitted and therefore the coverage of the EPF Act by the contractors opting for voluntary coverage will not result in any undue financial outflow and only minor administrative adjustments may have to be made by such contractors. Therefore the apprehension expressed of undue hardship by the petitioners is found to be without any basis.

14. As can be gathered from the chart enclosed to the counter affidavit of the IOC, many establishments with less than 20 employees were provided the PF Code and therefore since the petitioners herein are interested for contract works under the IOC, they may acquire the required qualification by applying for voluntary coverage under Sub Section (4) of Section 1 of the EPF Act. If the interested establishment of the contractor with less than 20 employees apply for voluntary coverage under Section 1(4) of the EPF Act, the EPF Code should be issued to them as was earlier ordered by this court in M/s. Digboi IOC AOD Contractors' Association (Supra).