Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Through Hybrid Mode) Mr. Shikhar Kacker, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

On culmination of the proceedings under Para 26B of the scheme, called as the "Employees Provident Funds Scheme of 1952", the respondent- workman was determined as to be an employee of the petitioner.

During the course of the arguments, it has reflected that the said order of determination of respondent No. 2, as being an employee of the petitioner, was put to challenge by the petitioner in a Revision, which was dismissed and thereafter, as far as the issue of Para 26B of the Scheme of 1952 is concerned, that has attained finality, qua the petitioner.

As a consequence of the determination made under Para 26B of the said Scheme, an order was passed on 14.05.2019, and later on, by virtue of an implication of the decision taken under Para 26B of the Scheme, the Regional Provident Fund Commission, had passed an order under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, whereby a financial liability to the tune of Rs. 73,920/- and Rs. 1,63,837/- respectively have been imposed on the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 29.10.2020, which has been individually passed in relation to the aforesaid two amounts.