Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. This being so, the respondent issued notice under para 26B of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 ("EPF Scheme, 1952" for short). During the course of enquiry, the petitioner explained in writing that "PMDJY" Scheme, model working of the "Bank Mitra" and their payment scheme. The respondent by the impugned order without considering the objections of the petitioner, held that the "Bank Mitras" are the employees of the petitioners and the proceedings were to be continued for the purpose of assessment. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners have preferred these petitions.

4. The respondents have filed their objections, inter alia, contending that the petitioners in both the petitions are the establishment covered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952, and since the petitioners-establishment failed to remit dues for the period from December 2017 and 2018, the respondent had initiated enquiry under Section 7A of the said Act to assess the dues and while the enquiry was in progress, the enforcement officer submitted a report stating that the establishment is engaged in providing banking facilities to rural customers for effective implementation of Government Schemes of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh States and the establishment is having "Bank Mitras" to provide banking services and the provident fund benefits have been extended to the office employees and not to such "Bank Mitras". It is stated that, in order to verify the eligibility of the "Bank Mitra" and to examine the employer and employee relationship, an enquiry under para 26B of the EPF Scheme, 1952 was initiated, and on enquiry, vide impugned order it is rightly held that the "Bank Mitras" are the employees within the meaning of definition under Section 2(f) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and by verifying various records and proper application of the judicial mind, the respondent has arrived at a reasonable conclusion that the "Bank Mitras" are employees and hence, there is an employer and employee relationship to the establishment as per the order under para 26B which has been passed on examining the entire records.

5. Heard Sri K.Kasturi, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Bhoomi Yasaswini K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the cases would submit that the authority under the statute cannot issue notice under para 26B of the EPF Scheme and then proceed to pass an order under a different provision of Section 7A of EPF and MP Act without affording an opportunity to the parties to the proceedings. Notice of the provision under which an enquiry has been concluded and the procedure adopted by the authority is against the principles of natural justice. That the authority was predetermined in its approach, which is evident from the notice that was issued stating that there are "employees who have not been covered" and hence, the enquiry was only a formality. The reasoning accorded by the authority holding that the "Bank Mitras" are the employees of the petitioners, on the ground that they are engaged in connection with the work of the establishment, when the main work of the petitioners is IT services and not implementation of the "PMJDY" Scheme. Learned senior counsel would submit, that the entire proceedings conducted by the authority is without following the principles of natural justice as contemplated under para 26B of the EPF Scheme 1952, and the entire proceeding is vitiated as wholly erroneous.

- 10 -

to become a member, the same shall be referred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who shall decide the same:

Provided that both the employer and the employee shall be heard before passing any order".

11. The plain reading of the said para 26B of the EPF Scheme, 1952 would envisage, that the authority can decide the question as to whether the person is an employee or not, while deciding the said question under the Scheme requires both the employer and employee shall be heard before passing the order by the authority and the authority cannot pass an order by issuing notice only to the employer. It is evident from the material placed before this Court that the "Bank Mitra" whom the authority held to be an employee, were not parties to the said proceedings. The entire exercise of the proceedings initiated by the respondent is without following para 26B of the EPF Scheme, 1952 and violative of principles of natural justice. If we read the entire Act including the Scheme, the purpose of this enactment was to create a welfare legislation regarding the contribution and