Page No.# 1/9 vs The Central Board Of Trustees And 2 Ors on 2 December, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                           Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010124272016




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:16730

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/7853/2016

            BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD
            REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BONGAIGAON TELECOM
            DISTRICT, BONGAIGAON, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES and 2 ORS.
            EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION, REP. BY THE CENTRAL
            PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14 BIKAJI
            CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-66

            2:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
             REGIONAL OFFICE
             EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
             BHANGAGARH
             GHY-5

            3:THE ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
             REGIONAL OFFICE
             EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
             BHANGAGARH
             GHY-

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.J PHUKAN, MR.B PATHAK,MR.P DEY,MR.B C
PATHAK,MR.R THADANI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S K CHAKRABORTY, MR. S NAG,MS. M. G. BISWAS,MS.M
DUTTA,MRSA CHAKRABORTY,MR.P K ROY,
                                                           Page No.# 2/9


Linked Case : WP(C)/2717/2020

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
A COMPANY REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT HC MATHUR LANE
JANPATH
NEW DELHI- 110001
REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CIVIL DIVISION
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
PIN- 788001
ASSAM


VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND 2 ORS
EPFO
REP. BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN
14 BIKAJI CAMA PLACE
NEW DELHI- 66

2:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL OFFICE
 EPFO
 BHANGAGARH
 GUWAHATI- 781005

3:THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT OFFICE
EPFO
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788005
------------
Advocate for : MR. B C PATHAK
Advocate for : MR. D DEY (SC
C.B.T) appearing for THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND 2 ORS



Linked Case : WP(C)/1198/2021

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
                                                       Page No.# 3/9

1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HC MATHUR LANE
JANPATH
NEW DELHI
110001
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) BSNL CIVIL
DIVISION
BSNL BHAWAN
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
ASSAM
784001
ASSAM


VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND 3 ORS
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN
14 BIKAJI CAMA PLACE
NEW DELHI 66

2:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

REGIONAL OFFICE
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI 781005

3:THE ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

REGIONAL OFFICE
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI 781005

4:THE ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

DIST. OFFICE
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION
TEZPUR
ASSAM 784001
------------
                                                                           Page No.# 4/9




                                      BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                  For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate

                  For the Respondent(s)    : Mr. S. Nag, Advocate
                                           : Mr. M. G. Biswas, Advocate


                  ·     Date on which Judgment was reserved       : N/A

                  ·     Date of Pronouncement of Judgment         : 02.12.2025

                  ·     Whether the pronouncement is of
                        the Operative Part of the Judgment        : No

                  ·     Whether the full Judgment has been
                        Pronounced                               : Yes


                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Nag, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. In the present batch of three writ petitions before this Court, the Petitioner has assailed the orders of assessment carried out under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952').

3. The sole ground on which the Petitioner has assailed the respective assessment orders is that without identification of the beneficiaries, the Page No.# 5/9

Respondent Authorities could not have carried out the assessment in terms with Section 7A of the Act of 1952.

4. Taking into account that the issues involved in all the three writ petitions are common, this Court takes up all the three writ petitions together for disposal by this common judgment and order.

5. In WP(C) No.7853/2016, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs.1,87,743/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

6. In WP(C) No.2717/2020, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 thereby determining that the Petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.29,771/- in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

7. In WP(C) No.1198/2021, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of Powers under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 whereby an amount of Rs.10,46,976/- was determined to be the dues payable by the Petitioner in respect of the workers engaged by or through the contractors.

8. The materials on record as well as a perusal of the impugned orders in Page No.# 6/9

the three writ petitions clearly show that the Petitioner through certain contractors, the names of such contractors which were disclosed by the Petitioner before the Respondent Authorities, engaged various workers. The names of the contractors and the details of the payment so made admittedly is available with the Respondent Authorities as would be seen from the materials on record. The question which has been urged by the Petitioner in the instant batch of writ petitions is that without identifying the beneficiaries, the Petitioner cannot be burdened with an assessment carried out under Section 7A of the Act of 1952.

9. The answer to the dispute raised in the present batch of writ petitions is available at Paragraph No.30 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short 'the Scheme of 1952') whereby a responsibility/obligation is casted upon the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect to the employees directly employed by him and also in respect to employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. Paragraph No.30 of the said Scheme of 1952 being relevant is reproduced herein under:

"30. Payment of contributions.- (1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution).

(2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the Page No.# 7/9

contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution) and shall pay to the principal employer the amount of member's contribution so deducted together with an equal amount of contribution (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also administrative charges.

(3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges.

[Explanation.- For the purposes of this paragraph the expression "administrative charges" means such percentage of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Board and having regard to the resources of the Fund for meeting its normal administrative expenses, fix.]"

10. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Section 7A of the Act of 1952 which empowers the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the amount due from any employer under any provisions of the Act of 1952, the Scheme of 1952 or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme as the case may be.

11. It is further seen from Sub-Section (2) of Section 7A of the Act of 1952 Page No.# 8/9

that the designated Officials as described in Sub-Section (1) of Section 7A of the Act of 1952 have been endowed with the power to conduct enquiry and in that regard, powers vested upon a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trying the suit have been conferred. It includes such powers such as enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses.

12. It is the opinion of this Court that on the basis of the said power under Section 7A(2) of the Act of 1952, the Respondent Authorities have been conferred with the power to ascertain who are the beneficiaries taking into account that the names of the contractors are available as have been furnished by the Petitioner.

13. Taking into account the above aspects, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed have no merit inasmuch as the Petitioner in view of Paragraph 30 of the Scheme of 1952 as quoted hereinabove is liable to make the payments as have been determined vide the impugned orders. It is the further opinion of this Court that appropriate directions therefore should be passed thereby directing the Petitioner to deposit the amounts determined in the impugned orders within a time frame and further directing the Respondent Authorities to cause enquiry so that the beneficiaries can be identified and the deposits so made by the Petitioner are disbursed to the beneficiaries.

14. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the Page No.# 9/9

following observations and directions:

(i) The challenge to the order dated 30.06.2016 in WP(C) No.7853/2016 do not call for any interference.

(ii) The challenge to the order dated 16.12.2019 in WP(C) No.2717/2020 do not call for any interference.

(iii) The challenge to the order dated 17.09.2020 in WP(C) No.1198/2021 do not call for any interference.

(iv) The Petitioner herein is directed to deposit the said amount as determined in the impugned orders challenged in the instant batch of writ petitions within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the present judgment.

(v) The Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall upon deposit of the said amounts within the time as mentioned hereinabove carry out necessary exercise in terms with Section 7A of the Act of 1952 to identify the beneficiaries and upon identification, disburse the amounts to the beneficiaries.