M/S. Institute Of Resource Development … vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 6 May, 2026

Telangana High Court

M/S. Institute Of Resource Development … vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 6 May, 2026

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
                    TELANGANA
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 29599 OF 2023

                           06.05.2026

Between:

M/s Institute of Resource Development
And social Management,
Rep. by its Chairman
Sri M. Qurratulain Hasan
                                                          ..... Petitioner
And

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II(C&R),
Regional office, Hyderabad & others.

                                                       ..... Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner is a Non-Governmental Organization

formed as a Society by retired senior officials with the object of

rendering service to society at large and is registered under the

then Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Public Societies

Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350 F) vide Registration

No. 362 of 1987. They are engaged in activities relating to

development of competence in water resources, development of

farmers, monitoring and evaluation of various schemes

implemented for weaker sections, conducting research and

studies on irrigation and watershed related activities, and
2

providing consultancy and professional services to Government

and non-governmental organizations, all on a non-profit basis.

1.1. It is stated, petitioner is a non-profit organization

formed by retired senior officials to render service to society and

is not engaged in any commercial or profit-oriented activity, and

that it undertakes specific project works, particularly relating to

collection of information on water resources and allied subjects,

for which it engages certain volunteers and consultants on need

basis, paying them either consultancy charges or expenses out

of the project funds received. The persons so engaged by

petitioner were only volunteers or consultants and not

employees, inasmuch as they were neither appointed on any

rolls nor required to work for any fixed hours, and they were not

subject to any control or supervision of petitioner, as they

independently visited various places to collect information and

were also free to engage in other work during the relevant

period. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can they be

treated as employees of Petitioner.

1.2. Petitioner contends that the amounts paid to such

volunteers towards expenses for visiting places, collecting

information and assisting in research activities, as well as

consultancy charges paid to consultants, were mistakenly and
3

unknowingly recorded by the accounts department as salary

payments, though in reality there was absolutely no employer

and employee relationship, and the regular staff salaries were

always shown separately in the accounts, clearly distinguishing

them from such payments, and therefore the claim that such

volunteers are employees is wholly imaginary and untenable.

1.3. In 2014, it is stated, four persons who were earlier

associated with Petitioner, having an eye on the fixed deposit

amount of the society, raised for the first time in March, 2014 a

complaint before the EPF Department alleging that Petitioner

had engaged 20 or more employees in 1996 and claiming

Provident Fund coverage from that period, which is nothing but

an afterthought made after about 18 years and is liable to be

rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when

such persons had worked all along without ever raising any

such issue and no Provident Fund contributions were deducted

from their salaries at any time. Even though no limitation is

prescribed under the Employees Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’), such

claims cannot be permitted to be raised after an unreasonable

delay of nearly two decades and ought to have been raised

within a reasonable period of two to three years, and the belated
4

claim itself demonstrates the mala fide intention of the

complainants.

1.4. As per the records available with Petitioner, the

Society never engaged 20 employees on any single day at any

point of time, and all available and relevant records were

produced before the authority during the proceedings under

Section 7A, including records for about 15 years, which clearly

establish that the number of employees never exceeded the

statutory threshold, but the same were not properly considered

by the authorities. The observation of the 1st respondent

authority that petitioner engaged 20 employees in 1996 based

on the report of the Enforcement Officer is untenable,

particularly when they specifically denied permission to cross-

examine the said Enforcement Officer, and such denial amounts

to gross violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the

proceedings under Section 7A illegal and unsustainable.

1.5. The complainants, numbering four, appear to have

colluded with the Enforcement Officer and got submitted a

report alleging engagement of more than 20 employees in 1996,

whereas upon receipt of notice, petitioner made efforts to trace

and audit its records but no records of 1996 were available, and

despite this, the Authority relied upon photocopies of alleged
5

records submitted by the Enforcement Officer and concluded

coverage, which is arbitrary, untenable and unsustainable.

1.6. The 1st respondent failed to consider the original

records produced by Petitioner for a substantial period and

instead, relied upon unverified photocopies, and further failed to

appreciate that petitioner never deducted any amount towards

employee share of Provident Fund contributions, therefore,

ought to have waived at least the employee share of

contributions for the pre-discovery period, especially

considering that the Petitioner is a non-profit organization and

is presently a defunct establishment without any employees

since 2014. It is also stated, except the four complainants, no

other employees or beneficiaries were identified by the 2nd

respondent, therefore, no Provident Fund liability can be

fastened upon petitioner beyond such identified persons, and in

this regard, petitioner had relied upon decisions of the EPF

Appellate Tribunal, including M/s Bharat Motor Transport vs.

APFC, Delhi (ATA No.209(4) of 2007 decided on 26.07.2016),

M/s Videshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. RPFC

(ATA No.328(9) of 2011 decided on 20.07.2016), and M/s HPN

Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. PF Commissioner (ATA

No.1252(9) of 2015 decided on 24.08.2016), to contend that
6

unless beneficiaries are identified, no determination of EPF dues

can be made, but the said judgments were not considered by

the authorities.

1.7. The 2nd respondent did not furnish any calculation

sheet showing the manner in which Rs.52,49,810/- for the

period from March, 1996 to September, 2014 was computed,

and the basis of such calculation was not disclosed, and no

opportunity was given to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer

who prepared such report and calculation. It is stated,

Petitioner is not liable to pay any EPF contributions in respect of

the complainants or otherwise, as it never engaged 20 or more

employees at any time, and the determination of liability by the

1st respondent is based solely on presumptions and

assumptions without proper appreciation of facts. Petitioner is

stated to have preferred Appeal under Section 7-1 of the EPF

Act against the order dated 30.11.2016 before the 4th

respondent Tribunal in ATA No.01/2017 -CGIT 2017

(238/2018), and prior thereto, the 1st respondent had passed

an ex parte order dated 19.11.2014, against which petitioner

filed a review petition dated 07.01.2015 under Section 7B of the

Act, but during the pendency of the review, respondents forcibly

recovered Rs.52,49,810/- from Petitioner’s fixed deposit by way
7

of Demand Draft, compelling them to file Writ Petition No. 243

of 2015 wherein by order dated 19.01.2015, it was directed that

review petition be considered and recovery be made, subject to

final orders.

1.8. It is further stated, despite the said direction, the

1st respondent rejected the review petition by order dated

18.02.2015 without issuing notice, which led to filing of Writ

Petition No.6416 of 2015, wherein by order dated 13.03.2015,

the Authority was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing

and not to disburse the recovered amount, yet the entire

amount of Rs.52,49,810/- had already been recovered from

petitioner.

1.9. Petitioner states that the 4th respondent Tribunal

dismissed the Appeal filed by petitioner under Section 7-1 of the

Act in ATA No.01/2017 CGIT 2017 (238/2018) by order dated

03.04.2023, served on petitioner on 22.09.2023, without

properly appreciating that the burden of proof regarding

coverage from 01.03.1996 lies on the complainants and not on

petitioner, and erred in placing the burden on petitioner to

disprove the Enforcement Officer’s report based on photocopies.

The Tribunal failed to consider that Petitioner had produced

records for the period 1999-2000 to 2010 and attendance and
8

wage registers from 2010 to 2015, which show that at no point

more than nine employees were engaged, and further failed to

appreciate that the alleged photocopies only reflect payments

made to village volunteers who are free-lancers and cannot be

treated as employees.

1.10. The Tribunal failed to consider that no employee

had raised any issue regarding Provident Fund coverage from

1996 to 2014 and that the complaint dated 10.03.2014 is

belated, and also failed to consider that petitioner cannot be

expected to maintain records for more than 18 years, and that

the absence of records of 1996 cannot be held against the

Petitioner. The Tribunal failed to consider that calculation sheet

does not disclose the basis for determining the amount of

Rs.52,49,810/- and that no beneficiaries are identified therein,

therefore, determination of dues is unsustainable and for all the

aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary,

unjust and are liable to be set aside.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter contending that

the 1952 Act and the Schemes framed thereunder are social

welfare legislations intended to provide social security in the

form of Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance to employees,

and respondents are enforcing the statute enacted for the
9

benefit of employees of establishments by ensuring compliance

with the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the Act

applies to every establishment employing 20 or more persons on

any day and mandates compulsory deduction and deposit of

Provident Fund contributions, and any failure to deposit such

legitimate dues empowers the authorities under Section 7A of

the Act to initiate quasi-judicial proceedings to determine and

recover such dues. It is further contended that the present writ

petition has been filed with a view to defeat the object of the Act,

which is to provide social security to employees, and reliance is

placed on judicial precedents including RPFC Vs. Shibu Metal

Workers (1964-65 (27) SC FJR 491), State Vs. Giridhari Lal

Bajaj (1962 II LLJ 46), Office in charge, Sub Regional PF

Office Vs. M/s. Godavari Garments Ltd. (2019 LLR 1019), The

Daily Partap Vs. RPFC, Punjab (1999 LIC 2099), Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. &

Ors., Organo Chemical Industries Vs. Union of India, and

other judgments to contend that the Act being a beneficial social

welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally in favour of

employees and in furtherance of Directive Principles of State

Policy.

10

2.1. It is stated, petitioner establishment is covered

under the provisions of the Act with effect from 01.03.1996 and

was allotted PF Code No. TS/HYD/82357, and as the

establishment failed to remit Provident Fund dues for the period

from 03/1996 to 09/2014, an inquiry under Section 7A was

initiated vide summons dated 04.06.2014. It is contended that

after providing ample opportunities, an order dated 19.11.2014

was passed determining Rs.52,49,810/- (Rupees Fifty Two

Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only),

followed by the prohibitory order dated 07.01.2015 and recovery

of the said amount. It is further contended that upon challenge

by Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 243 of 2015, this Court by

order dated 19.01.2015 directed consideration of review petition

dated 07.01.2015, and the same was rejected by order dated

18.02.2015 for want of new material as required under Section

7B(1) of the Act. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 6416 of 2015,

this Court by order dated 13.03.2015 set aside the order dated

18.02.2015 and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry,

pursuant to which summons dated 08.04.2015 were issued

and inquiry was conducted, culminating in a fresh order dated

25.11.2016 under Section 7A determining the same amount of

Rs.52,49,810/- for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014. It is
11

further contended that the Appeal filed by Petitioner in A/TS

01/2017, subsequently renumbered as EPFA 238/2018 before

the CGIT, Hyderabad, was dismissed by order dated 03.04.2023

confirming the 7A order.

2.2. As per the report of the Enforcement Officer dated

21.09.2016, upon verification of the records including cash

book for the period 1996-97, it was found that salaries were

paid to 25 employees for the month of March, 1996, and in the

absence of records prior to that period, the establishment was

rightly covered with effect from 01.03.1996 under Section 1(3)(b)

of the Act. It is contended that Petitioner itself admitted

engagement of consultants, retired persons, villagers and

students for research and data collection work and payment of

amounts to them, and such persons fall within the definition of

“employee” under Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes persons

employed directly or indirectly or through contractors in

connection with the work of the establishment. It is further

contended that payments made to such persons constitute

wages within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and

therefore, attract Provident Fund contributions irrespective of

the nomenclature such as volunteers or consultants.
12

2.3. Petitioner is the “employer” within the meaning of

Section 2(e) of the Act and is bound by statutory obligations

under Para 30 and Para 36 of the EPF Scheme, including

payment of contributions and maintenance of records, and

having failed to discharge such statutory duties, Petitioner

cannot take advantage of its own default. It is contended that

reliance is placed on judgments including M/s Bidi Supply Co.

Vs. RPFC (Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.14712 of 2005 decided

on 01.07.2016), Ashok Kapil Vs. Sana Ullah (1996) 6 SCC

342, Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank (2010) 6 SCC

193, and Indrajit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 12

SCC 588 to contend that no person can take advantage of his

own wrong and statutory obligations cannot be avoided.

2.4. Petitioner’s contention that it employed less than 20

persons is incorrect and amounts to misrepresentation, as it

has sought to restrict the definition of employees only to

administrative staff while excluding field staff and persons

engaged in connection with its activities, which is contrary to

the provisions of the Act. It is contended that even persons

engaged indirectly, including volunteers or those working on

outsourced activities, are employees under Section 2(f) of the

Act, and the relationship between such persons and petitioner is
13

that of employer and employee, and payments made to them

constitute wages attracting statutory liability.

2.5. Petitioner failed to produce original records for the

relevant period despite being granted as many as 35

opportunities during the inquiry under Section 7A, therefore,

adverse inference was rightly drawn, and reliance on the

Enforcement Officer’s reports dated 15.10.2014 and 21.09.2016

is justified. It is contended that the cash book for March, 1996,

which was handed over to the Enforcement Officer on

01.04.2014, clearly shows payment of salaries to 25 employees,

and the Petitioner failed to rebut the same by producing original

records, therefore, the finding that the establishment employed

more than 20 employees is justified. It is further contended that

the plea of non-availability of records due to lapse of time is

untenable as it is the duty of the employer to maintain such

records and produce them when required.

2.6. According to Respondents 1 to 3, there is no

limitation period prescribed under Section 7A of the Act,

therefore, the proceedings initiated in 2014 for coverage from

01.03.1996 are valid and lawful, and non-deduction of

Provident Fund contributions from employees does not absolve

the employer from complying with statutory obligations under
14

the Act. It is stated, the contention regarding non-supply of

calculation sheet is vague and untenable as all relevant

documents, including Enforcement Officer’s reports, were duly

furnished to petitioner during the inquiry, and petitioner failed

to specify any particular document that was not supplied. It is

further contended that determination of dues amounting to

Rs.52,49,810/- for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014 was

made after due inquiry under Section 7A of the Act in

accordance with principles of natural justice.

2.7. Finally, it is stated, petitioner failed to utilize the

opportunities given during the inquiry proceedings and failed to

produce relevant documents to substantiate its claims, and

therefore the order passed under Section 7A is valid and

sustainable, and the appeal preferred by the Petitioner in ATA

No.01/2017-CGIT 2017 (238/2018) having been dismissed by

order dated 03.04.2023 confirming the 7A order, no interference

is warranted.

3. Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit contending

that at the outset, there is no illegality, arbitrariness,

irrationality or violation of principles of natural justice in the

order dated 03.04.2023 passed in ATA No.1/2017 (CGIT 2017

(238/2018)) by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and
15

that the writ petition itself is defective and liable to be

dismissed. The contention of petitioner that it engaged only

volunteers and paid expenses is specifically denied as false and

misleading, and it is contended that appointment letters filed

along with the implead application and the cash book seized by

the Enforcement Officer clearly establish that the proposed

respondents were full-time employees recruited by petitioner,

and the plea that they were villagers, students or volunteers

working part-time is only taken to avoid liability under the

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952.

3.1. It is specifically denied that any consultancy

charges were paid to consultants, and it is contended that

neither were the employees recruited as consultants nor were

they paid consultancy charges, and the writ petitioner itself has

admitted that payments were made and recorded as “salary” in

its accounts, which is a crucial admission demonstrating that

the persons engaged were in fact employees and not volunteers.

3.2. The definition of “employee” under Section 2(f) of

the 1952 Act is wide enough to include all persons employed for

wages directly or indirectly in connection with the work of the

establishment, including the so-called villagers, volunteers and
16

students engaged by petitioner, therefore, even as per

petitioner’s own case, it is bound to pay provident fund

contributions in respect of such persons. The allegation of

petitioner that employees initiated proceedings with an eye on

the fixed deposits is denied, and it is contended that

respondents merely sought enforcement of their legally

enforceable rights, and there is no mala fide, and further there

is no limitation under the Act and petitioner squarely falls

within the definition of “employer” under Section 2(e) and is

bound to comply with the statutory provisions.

3.3. The contention regarding delay and laches is

denied, and it is asserted that petitioner itself admitted that

respondents worked for over twenty years, and it is the sole

responsibility of the employer to pay provident fund

contributions, and such liability cannot be avoided on any

ground nor has the petitioner shown that it is exempted from

the provisions of the Act. The plea of petitioner that records are

not available is denied as a ploy to mislead the Court and avoid

liability, and it is contended that petitioner being a registered

society is bound to maintain records, and except attendance

registers for June 2010 to January 2015 and a vague tally data

for the years 2002 to 2014, no relevant records were produced
17

before the authority, and such material does not disprove the

finding that more than 20 employees were engaged from the

year 1996.

3.4. It is contended that not merely four but more than

20 employees were engaged by petitioner from 1996 and even

prior thereto, and allegations of collusion and malpractices are

baseless and made only to evade statutory liability and it is

further contended that several opportunities were given to the

writ petitioner to produce records and to cross-examine the

Enforcement Officer, but despite repeated adjournments,

petitioner failed to produce any material to establish that it did

not employ more than 20 employees, therefore, the plea of

violation of principles of natural justice is false.

3.5. Except limited records such as attendance register

for June 2010 to January 2015 and tally data for 2002 to 2014,

no documents were produced despite opportunities, and

petitioner is put to strict proof of its claim that it employed less

than 20 employees, and its contradictory plea that no PF

deductions were made further establishes its attempt to evade

statutory liability. The contention that liability is limited to four

employees is denied, and it is contended that appointment

letters and the cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer
18

clearly establish engagement of multiple employees, and the

order passed by the authority is neither arbitrary nor

unsustainable, and the writ petitioner is raising vague and

unsubstantiated allegations to avoid payment of lawful dues.

3.6. Writ petitioner had repeated false and misleading

pleadings in the grounds, and admission regarding 1996 cash

book seized by the Enforcement Officer is significant, and the

plea that entries were wrongly recorded as salaries cannot be

accepted, particularly when the petitioner failed to produce

subsequent records to substantiate such claim, which

demonstrates mala fide intention to delay payment of dues.

Petitioner deliberately failed to produce records and did not

cross-examine the Enforcement Officer despite opportunity and

is now falsely alleging violation of principles of natural justice,

and it is contended that the Enforcement Officer seized the cash

book of 1996 from petitioner’s custody, and the subsequent

conduct of the petitioner clearly shows delay tactics.

4. Respondent No.6 filed counter contending that

there is no illegality or violation of principles of natural justice

in the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in ATA No.1/2017 (CGIT

2017 (238/2018)) and Writ Petition is defective. The plea of

petitioner that it engaged only volunteers and paid expenses is
19

denied as false, and it is contended that appointment letters

and cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer clearly

establish that respondents were full-time employees, and the

plea that they were part-time volunteers is taken only to avoid

liability under the Act.

4.1. The contention regarding consultancy charges is

denied, and it is contended that petitioner itself admitted that

payments were made and recorded as salary, and despite

sufficient opportunities, petitioner failed to produce any

material regarding the format of such payments and instead

took repeated adjournments, therefore, cannot allege violation of

principles of natural justice. It is stated, as per Section 2(1) of

the Act, the definition of ’employee’ includes all persons

employed directly or indirectly in connection with the work of

the establishment, including the so-called villagers, volunteers

and students, and therefore the petitioner is bound to pay

provident fund contributions in respect of such employees.

4.2. It is stated, the allegation of mala fide intention on

the part of employees is denied, and it is contended that

respondents have only sought enforcement of their legal rights,

and that there is no limitation under the Act, and petitioner falls
20

within the definition of ’employer’ under Section 2(e) and is

bound to comply with the statutory obligations.

4.3. The contention of delay and laches is denied, and it

is asserted that petitioner itself admits that respondents worked

for about twenty years, and employer cannot escape liability to

pay provident fund contributions nor claim exemption. The plea

regarding non-availability of records is denied as a deliberate

attempt to avoid liability, and it is contended that petitioner is

bound to maintain records and except limited records such as

attendance register (June 2010 to January 2015) and tally data

(2002 to 2014), no documents were produced, and failure to

produce records despite several opportunities disentitles the

petitioner from alleging violation of natural justice.

4.4. It is contended that more than 20 employees were

engaged from 1996 and even prior thereto, and petitioner failed

to produce any material despite repeated opportunities, and the

plea that no opportunity was given is false, and the proceedings

under Section 7A clearly record that adequate opportunities

were provided. Petitioner is put to strict proof regarding its claim

of employing less than 20 employees, and its contradictory

stand regarding non-deduction of PF contributions further

demonstrates its attempt to evade statutory liability, and the
21

claim that liability is limited to four employees is denied as

untenable. Petitioner has raised vague and unsubstantiated

allegations in the grounds and is attempting to avoid payment of

lawful dues, and its failure to produce subsequent records to

explain the entries in the 1996 cash book shows mala fide

intention.

5. Heard Sri Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for

petitioner, Ms. Trupthi Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for

Respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel

for Respondents 5 to 26.

6. This Court has carefully considered the

submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side,

perused the pleadings, the material placed on record, the orders

passed by the authorities under the Employees’ Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the order

dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Hyderabad in ATA No.01/2017-CGIT 2017

(238/2018).

7. The principal issue that arises for consideration is

whether Petitioner establishment is liable to be covered under

the provisions of the 1952 Act and whether determination of
22

dues under Section 7A for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014,

culminating in the demand of Rs.52,49,810/-, is sustainable in

law.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

1952 Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted with

the object of providing social security to employees engaged in

establishments to which the Act applies. The scheme of the Act

makes it clear that once the statutory threshold of employment

is crossed, the applicability of the Act is automatic, and

employer is under a statutory obligation to comply with the

provisions relating to enrolment, contribution and maintenance

of records. The scope of inquiry under Section 7A of the Act

empowers the authority to determine not only the applicability

of the Act but also the quantum of dues payable by the

employer.

9. In the present case, the record discloses that the

Enforcement Officer conducted inquiry and submitted reports

dated 15.10.2014 and 21.09.2016, wherein it was specifically

recorded that petitioner establishment had engaged more than

20 employees as early as in March, 1996. The said conclusion is

based on cash book entries of the establishment for the relevant

period, which indicate payment of wages to about 25 persons for
23

March, 1996. The said material forms the foundational basis for

fixing the date of coverage as 01.03.1996.

10. Significantly, petitioner has not produced any

original records to rebut or disprove the said findings. Though it

is contended that the records of 1996 are not available, such a

plea cannot be accepted in the absence of any satisfactory

explanation. Petitioner, being the employer and custodian of

records, is expected to maintain and produce relevant

documents to substantiate its case. The failure of petitioner to

produce original records, despite being afforded multiple

opportunities during the proceedings under Section 7A, justifies

the drawing of an adverse inference against it.

11. The contention of Petitioner that the persons

engaged were only volunteers or consultants and not employees

cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 2(f) of the Act defines “employee” in wide and inclusive

terms so as to cover any person employed for wages, whether

directly or indirectly, in connection with the work of the

establishment. The definition is not restricted by nomenclature

and extends to all persons who receive wages for work

connected with the establishment.

24

12. In the present case, the material on record clearly

establishes that payments were made to several persons and

such payments have been reflected in the accounts as salary

payments. Even assuming that such persons were termed as

volunteers or consultants, the nature of engagement, coupled

with payment of wages, brings them squarely within the ambit

of “employee” under Section 2(f) of the Act. The plea of petitioner

that such entries were made by mistake in the accounts cannot

be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence to

substantiate such assertion. The further contention of

petitioner that there was no employer-employee relationship is

equally untenable. The existence of such relationship is to be

determined on the basis of factual indicators such as

engagement of persons, payment of wages, and the nexus of

such work with the activities of the establishment. The record

clearly demonstrates that the persons were engaged for the

purposes of petitioner’s activities relating to water resource

projects and allied work and were remunerated for such

engagement. These factors clearly establish the existence of an

employer-employee relationship within the meaning of the Act.

13. The plea of delay and laches raised by Petitioner is

also devoid of merit. It is an admitted position that no period of
25

limitation is prescribed under Section 7A of the Act for initiation

of proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that,

the cause of action is continuous and that the claim of

applicability of law of limitation is to be rejected. The Act being a

beneficial legislation intended to secure social security benefits

to employees, the authorities are empowered to determine dues

whenever such liability comes to light. The mere fact that

proceedings were initiated in 2014 in respect of coverage from

1996 does not, by itself, render the proceedings illegal or

unsustainable.

14. The contention that the proceedings are vitiated on

account of violation of principles of natural justice is not borne

out from the record. On the contrary, it is evident that petitioner

was issued summons, afforded multiple opportunities and was

permitted to participate in the inquiry. The record further

discloses that petitioner was granted several opportunities to

produce documents and substantiate its case, but failed to do

so. In such circumstances, the allegation that no opportunity

was provided cannot be accepted.

15. The argument of petitioner that the authorities

relied upon photocopies of certain documents, particularly cash

book entries of 1996, also does not merit acceptance. Reliance
26

on such material became necessary on account of the failure of

Petitioner to produce original records. When the employer, who

is in possession of the original documents, fails to produce the

same despite opportunity, the Authority is justified in relying

upon the available material on record to arrive at its

conclusions.

16. The contention regarding non-supply of calculation

sheet and lack of clarity in determination of dues is also not

tenable. Determination under Section 7A has been made after

due inquiry and based on the available records for the period

from 03/1996 to 09/2014. Petitioner has not demonstrated any

specific error in the computation or any prejudice caused on

account of alleged non-supply of calculation details. It is also

relevant to note that the order passed by the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act has been

subjected to appellate scrutiny by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal in ATA No.01/2017-CGIT 2017 (238/2018),

and Tribunal, upon detailed consideration of the entire material,

has confirmed the findings recorded by the authority. This

Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, does not sit as an Appellate Authority over
27

such findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse,

arbitrary or contrary to law.

17. In the present case, no such perversity, illegality or

jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by petitioner

warranting interference by this Court. On the contrary, the

findings are based on material evidence, are supported by

statutory provisions, and are in consonance with the object and

scheme of the Act.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the

considered opinion that petitioner has failed to establish that

the impugned orders suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or

infirmity requiring interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed,

confirming the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ATA No.01/2017

CGIT 2017 (238/2018), which in turn confirmed the order dated

30.11.2016 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

determining Rs.52,49,810/-(Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Nine

Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only) for the period from

03/1996 to 09/2014. No costs.

28

20. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

————————————-

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

06th May 2026

ksld
29