Patna High Court
M/s Shivalok Gas AgencyversusEmployees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petitioner is covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and is liable to make the assessed contributions.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivalok Gas Agency, challenged an order dated 03‑12‑2012 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7‑A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which deemed the agency covered by the Act and assessed a liability of Rs 2,15,163. The petitioner argued that it employed only seven wage‑earning staff and that the 14 Thela vendors were paid on a commission basis, thus the statutory threshold of twenty employees was not met and the order was ultra vires. The EPFO contended that the vendors received minimum wages and, together with the seven employees, the total strength of twenty‑one exceeded the threshold, justifying coverage. The Court examined the statutory provisions, the evidence of service cards and wage registers, and held that the agency was correctly covered and liable to contribute. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s jurisdiction to deem the establishment covered under the EPF Act under Section 7‑A.
- Whether the petitioner employed the requisite minimum of twenty persons for coverage, counting Thela vendors.
- Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the assessment.
- The validity of the assessed provident‑fund liability of Rs 2,15,163.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 — s. Rule 12A
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — s. 1(3), 2(b), 7-A
Subjects
- Employees' Provident Fund
- Section 7-A
- Coverage threshold
- Thela vendors
- Labour law
- Writ petition
- Due process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1544 of 2013
======================================================
M/s Shivalok Gas Agency At + P.S.- Brahampura, Sanjay Cinema Road, P.O.-
MIt, District- Muzaffarpur, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Rita Singh, W/O Sri
Ashok Ranjan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Government
of India) Sub Regional Office, New Vakalatkhana Bhawan, Court
Compound, Muzaffarpur-842001 Through Its Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner
2. The Assistant Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, EPF, Muzaffarpur
3. Ghuran Jha S/O Late Keshav Jha R/O Roop Patahi, P.S.- Sadar, District-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aakashdeep, Advocate
Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai, Advocate
For the EPFO : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aniket Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 23-04-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund
Organization. However, no one appears on behalf of
respondent No.3.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 03.12.2012, passed by
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Muzaffarpur,
contained in letter No.559 dated 03.12.2012, whereby the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
2/23
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, in
exercise of power vested under Section 7-A of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act
No.19 of 1952) has been pleased to order for the coverage of
the establishment of the petitioner as well as assessed a
liability of Rs.2,15,163/- payable by the petitioner in respect of
the provident fund dues of the Thela Vendor.
3. In this case respondent Nos.1 and 2
Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and its officials were
appeared and filed their counter affidavit. On issuance of
notice respondent No.3 has not appeared. Thereafter, this
Hon’ble Court has pleased to direct the petitioner for paper
publication in local Hindi News Paper, Hindustan, on or before
12.01.2026 for securing the appearance of respondent No.3.
The petitioner has published the notice for appearance in the
paper publication and filed the cutting of the paper publication
through supplementary affidavit in Hindi News Paper,
Hindustan, Muzaffarpur, dated 09.01.2026, but even then
respondent No.3 has failed to appear even after paper
publication. Finally after completion of 30 days from the paper
publication hearing started on 24.03.2026. Further hearing
took place on 02.04.2026 and arguments had been concluded
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
3/23
and case was fixed for judgment.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order under challenge is completely without
jurisdiction. He submits that petitioner is a Gas Agency
engaged in supply and distribution of Cooking Gas as a
Proprietor Firm. The Proprietor is a citizen of India. The
working area of the petitioner is at Muzaffarpur district
situated in Bihar. Counsel submits that there were only seven
employees in the petitioner’s establishment. No
manufacturing process is being carried out. The petitioner
remits the amount of cylinders supplied to him by the Indian
Oil Corporation in which cooking gas cylinders are supplied
to the consumers who are registered with the petitioner’s Gas
Agency as per their demand. Counsel submits that the
petitioner used to facilitate the delivery of gas cylinders to the
consumer for the amount paid by the consumer at the rate of
rupees eight per cylinder realizing from the consumers as
commission. The delivery of gas cylinders used to be made
from gas godown/office premises of the petitioner’s Gas
Agency to the consumers house. Counsel submits that
respondent No.3, an ex-thela Vendor associated with the
petitioner’s Gas Agency in the past and on account of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
4/23
differences, he filed an application before the Employees’
Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as the
‘EPFO’), Sub Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, on 27.07.2007
making a prayer for extending the benefit under the provisions
of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 to the employees of the petitioner’s Gas Agency.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the
application filed by respondent No.3, the EPFO authorities
issued letter No.1651 dated 15.01.2008 to the petitioner
intimating that there were 35 and above employees working in
or in connection with the establishment of the petitioner since
several years and no EPF benefit is being provided to them in
violation of the EPFO Act. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner has filed written statement and contested to this
letter indicating that there were only seven employees in the
establishment of the petitioner and the Thela Vendors are not
the paid employees of the Gas Agency but they were being
paid from the consumers @ Rs.8/- per cylinder when gas is not
distributed the Thela Vendors are not paid. It has also been
pleaded that no part of salary is being paid by the petitioner to
the Thela Vendors, but in spite of the objection filed by the
petitioner, the respondent-EPFO officials have issued a letter
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
5/23
bearing No.273 dated 16.05.2008 holding that petitioner’s Gas
Agency is covered under the provisions of Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and
is covered under the act with effect from 01.04.2007. Counsel
further submits that after coverage, a letter No.1301 dated
27.11.2008 was issued to the Manager, State Bank of India,
MIT Branch, for attaching the account of the petitioner’s Gas
Agency account for recovery of alleged EPF dues. Thereafter,
the petitioner has preferred CWJC No.812 of 2009 before this
Hon’ble Court challenging the order of coverage dated
16.05.2008. The above said writ petition filed by the petitioner
was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2011 and the order dated
16.05.2008 as well as order dated 27.11.2008, i.e., order of
coverage and order for attachment both were quashed with
liberty granted to the EPFO to pass fresh order in accordance
with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner within stipulated time frame. Learned Counsel
further submits that petitioner had appeared before the EPFO
respondent Nos.2 and 3 through Counsel, filed balance sheets,
profit and loss statements for the financial years of the relevant
period along with salary details of the employees. But the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed fresh order
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
6/23
on 03.12.2012 treating the petitioner’s Agency to be covered
under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 without any evidence on record. On the
basis of surmises and conjectures has calculated and assessed
liability to pay Rs.2, 15,163/- towards PF due under the Act.
Counsel submits that the said assessment has been made
without any basis, evidence or record or discussion made. The
order impugned is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-
7. Counsel submits that since the said decision has been
passed in gross violation of earlier order passed by this
Hon’ble Court, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition challenging the said order dated 03.12.2012
contained in letter No.559. Counsel submits that there were
only seven names found in the register of wages for the
financial year 2007. The earlier coverage dated 16.05.2008,
which has already been set aside by this Hon’ble Court in
CWJC No.812 of 2009 has been made basis for the present
order dated 03.12.2012. Counsel submits that it is due to this
reason that the order which has already been set aside has been
made basis for the present impugned order, the present
impugned order may be treated as a non-jurisdictional order
and, therefore, he submits that the order is absolutely bad in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
7/23
law.
5. Learned Counsel further submits that for the
purpose of coverage of EPFO, it is necessary that every such
establishment in which 20 or more persons must be employed.
He submits that here in the present case, only seven persons
are employed who are getting wages. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the EPF contribution is
applicable on basic wages. The 14 persons, who alleged to
work as Thela Vendors are basically commission paid persons
and under definition of basic wage, as defined under Section 2-
B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 any cash payment paid to an employee on
account of commission does not include the basic wages.
Therefore, he submits that for the purpose of applicability of
the EPF & MP Act upon the petitioner Agency, there is no
requisite number of employees working and this aspect has
been completely ignored by the authority and, hence, the order
passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated
03.12.2012, contained in Memo No.559 is completely non-
jurisdictional as well as illegal as employees working under
petitioner’s organization is less than 20. Therefore, he submits
that the writ petition be allowed and order dated 03.12.2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
8/23
contained in letter No.559 issued by Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Act be set aside.
6. Learned Counsel for the Employees
Provident Fund Organization, on the other hand, submits that
writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Counsel submits that it is
well within the power of Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner to pass order under Section 7A of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 about the applicability of the Act over the
petitioner’s establishment and also dues payable which has
been assessed in the said order dated 03.12.2012.
7. Learned Counsel for the EPFO further
submits that from the record of the petitioner it is crystal clear
that seven employees were engaged and with regard to 14
Thela Vendors job cards were issued by the Labour
Department, which is in the name of petitioner. Counsel
further submits that petitioner is taking the plea that Thela
Vendors were not working on wage; rather they are working on
commission basis @ Rs.8/- per cylinder, but the said
contention is not correct due to the reason that the petitioner
has submitted letter dated 17.04.2007 before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner in response to Memo No.2207 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
9/23
11.07.2007 that petitioner is paying the Thela Vendors basic
minimum wages applicable at that relevant period of time,
which is rupees eighty eight. The said letter has been annexed
in the counter affidavit of the writ petition as Annexure-A
series. Learned Counsel further submits that at the time of
passing of the said order dated 03.12.2012, the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner have considered all the
documents which has been annexed in the counter affidavit.
He further submits that the office of Labour Superintendent,
Muzaffarpur, have issued service card of 14 Thela Vendors and
the Proprietor himself submitted a letter before the Deputy
Labour Superintendent, Muzaffarpur, in which he has accepted
that minimum wages for Thela Vendor is rupees eighty-eight.
Therefore, he submits that a letter, which the petitioner has
filed, describing the monthly salary of 14 Thela Vendors and in
the accounts of the petitioner accepts the seven employees
which are in total 21 in number. He also submits that at the
time of consideration of those documents, it has been verified
by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that whether
those persons which are seven in number and those persons 14
in numbers as employee and Thela Vendors are same or
different. He submits that in the impugned order the name of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
10/23
all employees have been described separately.
8. He further submits that in case of Regional
Provident Fund Commission Vs. Sibu Metal Work reported in
1965 AIR SC 1976, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 is a social welfare legislation and in construing the
material provisions of such Act if two views are reasonably
possible, the Court should prefer the view, which helps the
achievement of the object of the Act. He further submits that in
the present case, it is apparent from the conduct of the
petitioner that it is trying to evade the extention of beneficial
legislation upon the poor Thela Venodrs with a wrong plea that
they were being paid with commission only as he is not paying
any wages to such persons. While from his own letters, it is
very much clear that contention of the establishment is wrong.
He further submits that by making such type of plea an attempt
has been made by the petitioner to deny the employees with
legitimate dues which they have rightfully earn in terms of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 and, therefore, he submits that the present writ
petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to assure,
payment make payment of the EPF contribution to the EPFO
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
11/23
so that the poor employee may receive their benefits.
9. After hearing the parties and going through
the records, it is necessary to quote the specific provisions
which are relevant with a view to decide the present writ
petition. Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 empowers the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner to pass order. Section 7-A of
the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 states as follows:
“7A. Determination of
moneys due from employers.—[(1) 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 may, by
order,—
(a) in a case where a dispute
arises regarding the applicability of this Act
to an establishment, decide such dispute;
and
(b) determine the amount
due from any employer under any provision
of this Act, the Scheme or the 3 [Pension]
Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
12/23
case may be, and for any of the aforesaid
purposes may conduct such inquiry as he
may deem necessary];
(2) The officer conducting
the inquiry under sub-section (1) shall, for
the purposes of such inquiry, have the same
powers as are vested in a court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
for trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely:—
(a) enforcing the attendance
of any person or examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery
and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on
affidavit;
(d) issuing commissions for
the examination of witnesses;
and any such inquiry shall
be deemed to be a judicial proceeding
within the meaning of sections 193 and 228,
and for the purpose of section 196, of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3) No order shall be made
under sub-section (1), unless [the employer
concerned] is given a reasonable
opportunity of representing his case.
(3-A) Where the employer,
employee or any other person required to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
13/23
attend the inquiry under sub-section (1)
fails to attend such inquiry without
assigning any valid reason or fails to
produce any document or to file any report
or return when called upon to do so, the
officer conducting the inquiry may decide
the applicability of the Act or determine the
amount due from any employer, as the case
may be, on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and other
documents available on record.
(4) Where an order under
sub-section (1) is passed against an
employer ex parte, he may, within three
months from the date of communication of
such order, apply to the officer for setting
aside such order and if he satisfies the
officer that the show cause notice was not
duly served or that he was prevented by any
sufficient cause from appearing when the
inquiry was held, the officer shall make an
order setting aside his earlier order and
shall appoint a date for proceeding with the
inquiry:
Provided that no such order
shall be set aside merely on the ground that
there has been an irregularity in the service
of the show cause notice if the officer is
satisfied that the employer had notice of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
14/23
date of hearing and had sufficient time to
appear before the officer.
(5) No order passed under
this section shall be set aside on any
application under sub-section (4) unless
notice thereof has been served on the
opposite party.”
10. Section 1(3) of the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which talks
about the coverage of the Act is as follows:
“(3) Subject to the
provisions contained in section 16, it
applies-
(a) to every establishment
which is a factory engaged in any industry
specified in Schedule I and in which
[twenty] or more persons are employed,
and
(b) to any other
establishment employing [twenty] or more
persons or class of such establishments
which the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify
in this behalf:
Provided that the Central
Government may, after giving not less than
two months' notice of its intention so to do,
by notification in the Official Gazette, apply
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
15/23
the provisions of this Act to any
establishment employing such number of
persons less than [twenty] as may be
specified in the notification.”
11. Similarly definition of basic wages has been
defined under Section 2(b) of the Employees’ Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which states as
follows:
“2.(b) “basic wages” means
all emoluments which are earned by an
employee while on duty or on leave or on
holidays with wages in either case in
accordance with the terms of the contract
of employment and which are paid or
payable in cash to him, but does not
include—
(i) the cash value of any food
concession;
(ii) any dearness allowance
(that is to say, all cash payments by
whatever name called paid to an employee
on account of a rise in the cost of living),
house-rent allowance, overtime allowance,
bonus commission or any other similar
allowance payable to the employee in
respect of his employment or of work done
in such employment;
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
16/23
(iii) any presents made by
the employer;”
12. Subsequently, what was the direction made
in CWJC No.812 of 2009 is to be taken care of, the extract of
which states as follows:
“Considering the rival
contentions of the parties, it appears that
after due investigation, by the Enforcement
Officer, of the petitioner's Organization
only seven employees were found working
though 14 Service Cards of vendors were
found. Even the impugned order does not
reflect that those 14 Service Cards were
inclusive of the seven employees found the
Enforcement Officer.
The Labour Department's
Information also suggests about 14 service
cards of vendors hence, prima facie on the
basis of the materials on record it appears
doubtful whether the Establishment of the
petitioner comes under the purview of the
Act. Section 1(3) (b) of the Act stipulates
the minimum number of employees in any
Establishment to bring the same within the
ambit of the Act which reads as follows:
"1. Short, Title extent and
application (1) this Act may be called the
Employees’ Provident Funds and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
17/23
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
(3)(b) Subject to the
provisions contained in Section 16, it
applies-(b) to any other Establishment
employing (twenty) or more persons or
class of such Establishments which the
Central Government may, by Notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided that the Central
Government may, after giving not less than
two months' notice of its intention so to do,
by notification in the Official Gazette, apply
the provisions of this Act to any
establishment employing such number of
persons less than (twenty) specified in the
notification.
Hence, there is no definite
finding by the respondent authorities that
petitioner employed twenty or more
persons.
So far as providing
opportunity is concerned, the impugned
order reflects that after filing two of show
cause, only two opportunities were given to
the petitioner. One on 07.02.2008 i.e.,
admittedly, prior to submission of the show
cause but after submission of the show
cause only one opportunity was given on
15.05.2008. That can not be treated to be as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
18/23
giving reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner to defend his case. Though in the
counter affidavit the respondents took the
stand that eleven notices were transmitted
but only one was accepted by the petitioner.
This contention is only supported by a letter
of the Enforcement Officer, as no specific
documents have been brought on record to
justify the stand of issuance of notice on
eleven occasions. Moreover, there is no
reference of these opportunities in the
impugned order as mentioned in the
counter affidavit. Hence, respondents not
supplement its stand through counter
affidavit, on such issue which is not there in
the impugned order. Hence, it can not be
said that petitioner was given opportunity
to defend its case.
On the basis of discussions
made the above, order dated 16.05.2008 as
contained in Annexure-4 and order dated
27.11.2008 as contained in Annexure-5 are
hereby quashed.
However, the respondent
authorities are liberty to pass afresh order
in accordance with law after giving due
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner
within stipulated time frame. With the above
observation, this P application is allowed.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
19/23
13. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of
the materials on record, particularly the order passed by this
Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 812 of 2009, it is evident that a
categorical finding was recorded to the effect that seven
employees were found working and fourteen service cards of
vendors were detected. However, no specific documents had
been brought on record by the Enforcement Officer to
substantiate the basis on which coverage under the Act could
be ascertained. It was for this reason that the earlier orders
dated 16.05.2008 and 27.11.2008 were set aside. Thereafter,
this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant liberty to the
authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within
the stipulated time frame.
14. Pursuant thereto, the respondent–EPFO
authority passed the order contained in letter No. 559 dated
03.12.2012. Upon scrutiny of the said order, two basic legal
contentions have been raised. The first contention is that such
an order could not have been passed under Section 7-A of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952. A perusal of Section 7-A makes it abundantly clear
that the provision empowers the authorities, firstly, to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
20/23
determine the applicability of the Act to an establishment, and
secondly, to determine the amount due from any employer
under the provisions of the Act. The procedure for conducting
such an inquiry and determination is also well described. The
legislature has further provided that, while exercising powers
under Section 7-A, the concerned authority shall have the same
powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
15. In the present case, the total number of
persons found to be engaged is twenty-one. Out of these, seven
employees were on the payroll, as reflected in the wage
register, and fourteen persons were recorded in Form XXI
under Rule 12A of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act,
1953, and were treated as Thela Vendors. The complete
particulars of these individuals, including their names and
addresses, were available in their respective service cards. It
was well within the competence of the authorities to verify
these documents. From the impugned order, it appears that
such verification was duly carried out through the office of the
Deputy Labour Commissioner. Reference has been made to
Memo No. 2202 dated 11.07.2007 issued by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, and the corresponding response dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
21/23
11.07.2007 submitted by the proprietor of the petitioner
establishment. By the said communication, it stood certified
that the proprietor admitted that the work related to delivery of
LPG gas was being carried out through Thela Vendors, who
were being paid minimum wages of Rs. 88/- per day. The said
document has been annexed as Annexure-A series to the
counter affidavit. On the basis of these materials, the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that,
with seven employees on the wage register and fourteen
persons working on the basis of service cards, the total strength
of twenty-one employees having different identity fully
described in impugned order exceeded the statutory threshold
for coverage under the Act. The computation and
consequential determination have also been duly recorded in
the impugned order. Operating part of such decision is quoted
hereunder:
“Having decided thus I find
that there is no room for any dispute with
regard to the number of employees as the
register of wages for shows 7 employees as
mentioned above and the Service Cards
available on record are 14 in number issued
to the thela vendors enumerated above; the
total strength coming to 21 which is the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
22/23
number of employees mentioned in the
coverage intimation letter date 01.04.2007
as referred above. There are no names
which are common in these two set of
records.
I, therefore, hold that Shivlok
Gas Services at Brahmpura, P.O. MIT,
Muzaffarpur allotted code no. BR/20488
has rightly been covered under the Act w.e.f
01.04.2007 at the employment strength of
21.
Dues for the period 04/2007
to 06/2008 has already been assessed. The
same has been done on the basis of wages
shown in the register of wages for the 7
employees on the roll and by taking
minimum wages of Rs.88/- per day for the
thela vendors as admitted by the
establishment before the Dy. Labour
Commissioner in its reply to his memo no.
2202 dated 11.07.2007 Profit and Loss
account for the year 2006-07 shown
expenses of Rs.5,09,815/- towards salary
and wages and Rs.3,74,487/- towards
vendor charges substantiating the stand
taken by the department. Therefore the
establishment was liable to pay
Rs.2,15,163/- towards provident fund and
allied dues under the provision of Act and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1544 of 2013 dt.23-04-2026
23/23
the schemes framed thereunder for the
period 04/2007 to 06/2008 as determined
by the then 7A authority.”
16. This Court, upon consideration of the
reasons recorded in impugned order based on documents and
after examining the provisions of Section 3 and Section 1(3)(b)
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, is of the firm view that the petitioner is
duly covered under the said Act and is liable to make
contributions on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. This
order is basically fresh consideration and based on earlier order
which was set aside by this Hon’ble Court earlier.
17. This Court further finds no infirmity in the
order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as contained in Letter No.
559 dated 03.12.2012 and, hence, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 02.04.2026
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…