Case Study: Contractors Must Be Impleaded in EPF Enquiry under Section 7A

Case:

Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) vs. M/s. Treads Direct Limited and Another
W.P. (C) No. 29145 of 2014

Court and Date:

Kerala High Court
Decided on: 5 June 2025
Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice S. Manu

Relevant Law:

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

• Section 7A: Empowers the Provident Fund Authority to conduct enquiries, determine PF dues, and enforce contributions from employers or principal employers.

Background:

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) initiated an enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act against M/s. Treads Direct Limited, assessing provident fund dues related to employees engaged through contractors.

The establishment contended that the workers in question were employees of third-party contractors, who were already covered under the EPF Act and were responsible for remitting their own PF contributions. Despite multiple requests by the company to implead these contractors in the 7A proceedings, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) refused to do so.

Subsequently, the EPFO passed an order holding Treads Direct Limited liable as the principal employer for unpaid contributions related to 18 non-enrolled workers and on additional allowances (like conveyance and special allowances) paid through the contractors.

The company appealed before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the EPF Authority’s order, holding that the enquiry was flawed because the contractors were not made parties. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the EPFO approached the Kerala High Court.

Legal Issue:

Whether an EPF enquiry conducted under Section 7A without impleading the contractors, despite requests from the principal employer, is legally sustainable.

Key Legal Findings:

1. Impleading Contractors Is Essential:
   The Court held that an enquiry under Section 7A must ensure natural justice by giving an opportunity to all concerned parties — including contractors — to present their case.
2. Principal Employer’s Responsibility Is Conditional:
   The principal employer is liable for PF dues only if the contractor (immediate employer) fails to remit them. Hence, unless the contractor’s role and compliance are examined, the principal employer cannot be conclusively held liable.
3. Serious Procedural Lapse by EPF Authority:
   The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’s refusal to issue notices to the contractors, despite repeated requests from the establishment, vitiated the entire enquiry process.
4. Error by Appellate Tribunal:
   While the Tribunal rightly recognized the procedural defect, it erred in completely setting aside the 7A order instead of remanding the matter for fresh enquiry.

Judgment:

The Kerala High Court found merit in the EPFO’s contention and allowed the writ petition partly. The Court modified the Tribunal’s order and directed as follows:

• The matter shall be remanded to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Calicut, for a fresh enquiry under Section 7A.
• The EPF Authority shall issue fresh notices to the establishment and, if requested, also to the contractors.
• Both the principal employer and contractors shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
• After hearing all concerned parties, a new determination of dues shall be made in accordance with law.

Thus, the Court restored the process to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process.

Conclusion:

The judgment reinforces the principle of procedural fairness in statutory enquiries under the EPF Act. It clarifies that EPF Authorities cannot impose liability on a principal employer without hearing the contractors, especially when the employer explicitly requests their inclusion.

The decision also provides a procedural roadmap — where the correct course, in such cases, is remand for re-enquiry, not outright quashing or imposition of liability.

Key Learning:

• Natural Justice: EPF enquiries under Section 7A must include all relevant parties, especially contractors whose employees are involved.
• Conditional Liability: The principal employer’s responsibility arises only if the contractor defaults in PF payment.
• Procedural Compliance: EPF Authorities must follow fair procedure by issuing proper notices and allowing representation.
• Tribunal’s Role: The appropriate remedy when procedural defects are found is remand for fresh enquiry, not complete annulment.
• Employer Guidance: Employers should maintain records of communications with contractors and ensure that all PF contributions are regularly remitted and documented.

Download the PDF copy of this Case:

Join the community that’s changing the way businesses handle compliance in India.