Date : 05.09.2012 The Hon’ble Minister Labour and Employment, Sharam Shakti Bhawan, Govt. of India, New Delhi 1. We submit that we are engaged in the business of execution and construction or roads, dams, buildings, bridges, development of infrastructure etc. The buildings and construction activities carried out by the builders, contractors are distinctly different from other conventionally established industries, such as manufacturing, trading, service etc., In fact, the activities of building and construction, do not constitute an industry, and are not even recognized by the Govt. as being so. The provident fund Act 1952, which is enacted for the purposes of providing security, to the families of employees working in industries in events such as his retirement or untimely death, can not made applicable to our industry on par with any regular manufacturing industry due to following grounds. 2. It is submitted that the Parliament has enacted the Provident Fund Act. In the year 1952 and the same applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry, specified in Schedule-I, in which 20 or more persons or class of such establishments, which the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette specify in this behalf. The Provident Fund Act is enacted for the purpose of establishing an institution of Provident Fund for employees in such factories and other establishments for the better future of the industrial worker on his retirement and for the benefit of his dependants in case of his death, while in employment. Plain reading of section 1, of the said Act together with its sub sections, make it apparent that the underlying idea is to bring establishments, who have 20 persons in the employment and which persons are working with an element of regularity to bring such establishments which its’ purview. Further, the statement of objects and reasons and the plain reading of the Act makes it clear that is envisages and relates to an industry and not to any activity when cannot be categorized as an industry. The word establishment is to be read in line with the dominant object and thus means an establishment of an industry. Permanency or at least semi-permanency and not casualness are covered section 1 (5) of the Provident Fund Act, supports our submission that there should be continuity of employment in establishment and concept of continuity in service stands to be apparently embedded in sub sections 3 and of section 1 of the Provident Fund Act. Therefore, engagement of a particular worker or particular person, for a particular work which is of a casual nature and who is employed due to the exigencies of circumstance, for a very brief period, cannot be interpreted to mean an employee for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act. The concept of employment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act excludes engagement of casual workers for temporary periods and the word “employment” has necessarily to be construed as regular, permanent or semi-permanent employment in the factory or establishment or an industry. It certainly cannot apply to those casual workers who may work for a very brief duration and then come back to work on the same site/project. 3. It is further respectfully submitted that vide notification No. GSR 1308 dated 17th September, 1964 the establishment of engineers and engineering contractors, not being exclusively engaged in building and construction industry were brought under the purview of the Provident Fund Act with effect from 31st October, 1964. By subsequent notification dated 23rd September, 1990 issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub clause (b) of sub section 3 of section 1 of Provident Fund Act, the union of India, specified every establishment engaged in the building and construction activity in which

20 or more persons were engaged as a class of establishment of which the provisions of Provident Fund Act would apply with effect from 31st October, 1990. 4. In view of the above said amendment, the all the builders’ whoever employing 20 or more persons with regularity and which employees figure on the employment rolls, under the specified salary limit are required to be covered under the EPF Act. Accordingly, we are registered our establishments under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act with individual code numbers. 5. In this connection, it is necessary to submit that up to 31st October, 1990 paragraph 26 (2) of the Provident Fund Scheme stood as follows:

26 (2) After this papagraph comes into force, in a factory or other establishment every employee employed, in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment, other than an excluded employee, required to become a member from the beginning of the month, following that in which he completes (three months continuous service) of has actually worked for not less than ( 60 days within a period of three months or less) in that factory or other establishment or in any factory of establishment (to which the Act applies), under the same employer or partly in other (or has been declared permanent in any such factory or other establishment whichever is earliest)”.

6. That this paragraph 26 (2) was amended and after amendment was enforced w.e.f 1st November, 1990 the same reads as follows:

“26 (2) After the paragraph comes into force, in a factory or other establishment, every employee employed, in or in connection with the work of that factory or establishment, other than excluded employee, who has not become a member already shall also be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the date of joining the factory or establishment”.

7. After the 1990 amendment to paragraph 26 (2) of the P.F. Scheme although the qualifying period for entitlement to become member of the P.F., which was there prior to the amendment, has been dispensed with, yet the amendment by no stretch of imagination would bring within the fold of paragraph 26 (2), daily rated, casual/temporary workers engaged at work sites mostly by the Thekedars/petty contractors in multi-tier system because the words “every employee employed” and “date of joining the factory of establishment” appearing in paragraph 26 (2) of the P.F. Scheme, clearly emphasize that the joining the factory or establishment for employment, has to be permanent or semi-permanent in nature or in the other works contemplates continuity in service. It necessarily excluded casual workers or daily wagers, with no continuity of service, bring brought, within the purview of the Act. 8. The purpose of the Act can never be to extend benefits to unskilled workers, who are temporary and mobile and who are not regularly employed. These casual workers may work only for a day or for a few hours and may never further do any work on the same site/project. It it commonly known that these contractors simultaneously take a number of jobs and rotate their casual labour form one site to another. There is no employer-employee or master-servant relationship between the builder and the causal rotating worker as there is no control or supervision, which can be exercised by the former upon

the letter nor any element of permanency or continuity of service of the latter with former,. The Act is designed to cover only those employees who has some continuity of service. 9. It is therefore our humble submission is that the Act is not applicable to the case of casual workers, who do not satisfy the definition of an employee under the Act, and since the establishments of the Builders are concerned with casual workers, the Act does not apply to them. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that vide orders dated 27.11.1992 and 19.5.1992 the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in the proceedings, had directed the EPF authorities to submit the modification, to the existing procedure, for implementation of the amendment to para 26 of the employees Provident Fund Scheme as amended. The Hon’ble High Court also directed that the scheme in respect of peripatetic labour be evolved with the following features. 1. The member should be in a position to make the withdrawal at any place. 2. The member should have the same account number which should be valid anywhere in the country. 3. The Scheme should enable the member to withdraw the money conveniently from the nearest Provident Fund Office. 4. The scheme should enable member to know about the balance of his credit at any given point of time. 10. It is submitted that it has been over twenty years, since the amendment to para 26 of the Employees Provident Fund scheme was brought in and in spite of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 27.11.1992 and 19.5.1992, asking the P.F Department to take effective steps for implementation and its directions towards the evolvement of the scheme, the Department have not taken any steps to implement the same, despite of the undertaking recorded in order dated 19.9.1996 given by the EPF department. 11. It is evident that the scheme cannot be implemented unilaterally unless The EPF Department provide for proper mechanism there is not purpose in making these demands, upon the Employers, to contribute towards the fund. On the other hand harassing the managements by making arbitrarily and illegal demands, stopping payments due to the employers arbitrarily under the Government contracts executed by them, asking for records and inspection of document and threatening the employers with coercive and harsh actions including seizure of their bank account and civil detention. 12. It is submitted that the interpretation sought to be given by the EPF department in seeking to interpret para 26 of the scheme so mean that the builder and construction agencies is liable towards contribution of the fund under the Act, even if the casual worker works for only one day is completely erroneous and impracticable. The same could never have been the intention of the legislature as held in various judgments of the Supreme Court & various High Courts. The scheme of the Act is to provide for the security, insurance and pension for the worker with some continuity of service. Thus, is other words, to enable the worker to have access to funds in his/her old age, it is thought of applying the scheme, to the working class. This necessarily implies a long standing, regular and continuous working relationship with the employer, which I obviously not the case with casual workers in the building and construction establishments.

13. Because the purpose of the Act is to provide for the institution of Provident Fund pension and insurance Funds simultaneously. It evidently cannot be extended to building and construction activities due to its peculiar features, such a, the transient and migratory nature of the labour, employed by the contractors, in order to provide services to the builders there can be no occasion for the builder to contribute towards the pension and insurance funds, as there is no permanency in the relationship between the builder who sub contracts the work to the subcontractor/thekedar and the daily labour employed by the sub-contractor. The entire purpose behind the grant of pension and insurance is to provide security to a regular worker, who is to be compensated for the long standing relationship with a particular industry and employer. This is clearly evident from the fact that the pension and the insurance fund is deductible by the employee only after he has served for a period of 9 years. This obviously cannot be extended to the building and construction activity for casual labour wherein the contractor at the outset is not employer, but merely sub contracts the work and in any case has no nexus or relationship with the labour who may change on a daily basis. This is the reason that the said labour is not even on the rolls of the builders as they do not work regularly for the builders and this do not fall under the category of employees of the builder. Hence it is a deaf pointer to the fact that this Act & the scheme made there under is not meant for employees more so casual employees in the construction & building, infrasturcutre establishments. 14. Further, the scheme in any event is ineffective and cannot be implemented in its present form is evident from the fact that even though the Govt. has recovered crores of rupees in this account, admittedly it has not been able to pass on the same for the benefit of the workers. Therefore, the entire purpose for which the scheme has purportedly been formed is lost. In fact in order dated 29.8.1998 passed in writ petition no. 2393/97, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) has observed that the funds so collected are still lying with the Govt. and that there is a deficiency in the implementation of the scheme as observed by the High Court of Bombay in Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (UOI). 15. Further, it is obvious that such a scheme can never benefited all the casual workers as the proceeds of the same have not still been passed to them. The casual workers themselves are not interested in the scheme and refuse deduction of contribution towards the fund from their wages, as a result the liability of contributing employee’s share, towards the funds, is also passed on to the petitioner. Further, due to the mobile and transitory nature of the casual construction work it is virtually impossible for the petitioner to implement the scheme, in terms of maintenance and filling, record, forms containing details such as date of joining and living, residence and other prescribed particulars of the casual workers. 16. We further respectfully submit that the construction industry as a whole has certain peculiar charastarics, which generally absent in any other industries or establishments. APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT; a. It is submitted that the Parliament has enacted the Provident Fund Act and the same applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry, specified in Schedule-I, in which 20 or more persons or class of such establishments, which the Central Government may be notification in the official gazette specify in this behalf. The Provident Fund Act is enacted for the purpose of establishing an institution of Provident Fund for employees in such factories and other establishments for the better future of the industrial worker on his retirement and for the benefit of his dependants in case of his

death, while in employment. Plain reading of section 1, of the said Act together with its sub sections, make it apparent that the underlying idea is to bring establishments, who have 20 persons in the employment and which persons are working with an element of regularity to bring such establishments which it’s purview. Further, the statement of objects and reasons and the plain reading of the Act makes it clear that is envisages and relates to an industry and not to any activity when cannot be categorized as an industry. The word establishment is to be read in line with the dominant object and thus means an establishment of an industry. Permanency or at least semi-permanency and not casualness are covered section 1 (5) of the Provident Fund Act, supports employer submission that there should be continuity of employment in establishment and concept of continuity in service stands to be apparently embedded in sub sections 3 and of section 1 of the Provident Fund Act. Therefore, engagement of a particular worker or particular person, for a particular work which is of a casual nature and who is employed due to the exigencies of circumstances, for a very brief period, cannot be interpreted to mean an employee for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act. The concept of employment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act excludes engagement of casual workers for temporary periods and the word “employment” has necessarily to be construed as regular, permanent or semi-permanent employment in the factory or establishment of an industry. It certainly cannot apply to those casual workers who may work for a very brief duration and then never come back to work on the same site/projects. b. ABSENCE OF FIXED PREMISES there are no fixed premises for execution of work by these employer. The work is carried out mostly in the open where the project is situated. In fact, may a times, the construction and road projects are located in uninhabited areas at far of places, in cities and towns, in jungles or in river or on oceans. The work-site go on shifting especially in case of road construction. This peculiar fluctuation in the environment makes it incumbent upon the contractors to engage the local workers who are accustomed to and who can withstand such weather conditions prevalent in the areas of operation. As a result of this the contractor has to engage different sets of people for doing different kinds of work in different climatic conditions and this makes the strength and quality of the work-force highly unstable and liable to frequent change. Where it is a question of construction a building, the labour is again subject to frequent change as the subcontractors, engaged in such activities, more often than not, work simultaneously on more than one site and hence the labour is subject to frequent change, from one site to the other. c. UNIQUENESS OF EACH CONSTRUCTION JOB: There are several types of works such as excavation work, foundation work, masonry work, carpentry work, slab work so on and so forth. There are workers who are experts in each type of work and they usually work in groups, take a particular job and go away after completion of such jobs. There are hundreds of varieties of work which are required to be done by experts and highly specialized groups. All these different specialized activities make the duration of work of a particular groups at a particular work site very short which could be as frequent as one day on one site & the next day on the other. There is remote possibility of the same group being re-employed by the same contractor for the same job on the same work site. These workers are normally migratory, rural, from agricultural community. During agricultural operations they go back to their fields, for traditional agricultural work. It is not certain whether the same persons might come back to construction work after harvesting and cropping season is over. The work force is, therefore, unstable. Construction activities have no assured continuity of work. The work is quite often discontinued for different reasons which include lack of details or

decisions, change in design, shortage of materials, shortage of work force etc. more ofter than not, even the sub contractors engage different labour every day, depending upon quantum of work to avoid fixed cost. d. MULTI-TIER SYSTEM: Normally, Government, Semi-government or public Bodies award the construction work to contractors like the employer, employer in turn, sub contract the work to several sub contractors depending upon the variety of jobs involved, in the main contract and vis-à-vis the sub contractors the employer become the principal employer. The sub contractors, in turn, again engage petty contractors or Thekedars who are awarded execution of different smaller jobs on piece rate basis. These Thekedars or petty contractors then in turn employ their own work force, who is usually, migratory labour and are “called site workers”. It is in this manner that the execution of the contract, is done by sub contractors. It will thus be seen that the Government, Semi-Government or public bodies, who award the main contract are principal employers vis-à-vis the main contractors like employer who in turn become principal employers, vis-à-vis sub contractors, who in turn become principal employers vis-à-vis the petty contractors, who actually employ daily rated migratory, temporary/casual labour/workers. There is not supervision or control by the main contractors, like employer, over the daily rated temporary/casual worker, actually engaged at the work sites by the sub contractors, petty contractors. These daily rated workers do their specialized or unskilled jobs at a particular work site and then move on the another site, never to return to the earlier site. These daily rated temporary/casual workers are not at all interested in and to the contrary are totally opposed to any deduction being made from their daily wages, towards Provident Fund contributions or any other contribution. Any deduction from their wages is vehemently opposed by them. These petty contractors having the expertise to do a particular job are engaged by the contractors or sub contractors and such Thekedars/petty contractors transfer their groups from one site to another, belonging to different conctractor/sub contractor & at times the said transfer takes place even on the same day. This makes it impossible for the main contractors like the employer to keep track of these site workers, who have no permanent address. They are constantly moving from place to place and are untraceable in future. e. IDENTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARIES It is further respectfully submitted that the purpose of the Act does not seem to be to impose some levy upon employer or employees. It is not in the nature of tax but as has been held in case of the Provident Fund Inspector vs. T.S. Hariharan reported in 1971 (2) SCC 68, and various other judgments including that of Appellate Tribunal, the purpose is to develop habit of saving in such employees. Identification of employee is therefore held to be must before effecting such recovery. It is the part of wages earned by such employees which is being deducted by the P.F. department and ultimately it is to be returned back to him. If his identity is not known, the amount cannot definitely be returned to him and as such there is no point in effecting deduction from employer on account of such unknown worker. Habit of saving cannot be developed unless and unitl the wages are earned continuously and consistently. The following observations of Hon Apex Court in case between The Provident Fund Inspector vs. T.S. Hariharan reported 1971 (2) SCC 68 assume importance here:

The Act was brought on the statute book for providing for the institution of provident fund for the employees in factories and other establishments. The basic purpose of providing funds appears to be to make provision for the future of the industrial worker after his retirement or

for his dependents in case of his early death. To achieve this ultimate object the Act is designed to cultivate among the workers a spirit of saving something regularly, and also to encourage stabilization of a steady labour force in the industrial centres. This Act has since its initial enactment been amended several times to extend its scope for the benefit of industrial workers.

f. This view was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, reported in reported in 2007 (1) LLJ page 518 have held that the casual and temporary workers employed through the contractors are not required to be covered unless they are identified. Therefore, with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry, the mater was remitted back to the Department with the following directions; Employer have attempted to demonstrate that as beneficiaries are unknown and the department itself had doubts, recovery from any earlier date for which no deduction has been made should not be allowed. The law in the point is already discussed above. The beneficiaries must be know and the amount of deductions cannot be permitted to lie idle with the department. Hence while finding out whether employees are covered under the Scheme/Act or not, this issue can be conveniently gone into by authority under Section 7-A of P.F. Act and it can choose to give effect to its order from any appropriate date as per evidence on record. g. The issue was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Himachal State Forest Corporation. Vs. RPF Commissioner 2008 Labour Law Reporter page 980 and further held that the demand of the department is ole and stale, the contributions can only be claimed for the beneficiaries who can be identified. The Supreme court has also further held that the old record which is not available with the management should not be insisted to be produced. h. It is submitted that the amount cannot be demanded by department if beneficiaries are not identifiable. The order dated 5/2/1991 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in writ petition ( Civil) No. 1212 of 1989 between A.I. Construction workers union v. Union of India State that the Hon’ble Apex Court also wanted P.F. department to propose appropriated scheme to protect the deductions made for such migratory site-workers but no such scheme as ever placed by department before either the Hon’ble Apex Court or any High Court. In fact the proceedings of 134th meeting of Central Board of Trustees {CBT} of Provident Fund department in which the issue of various cases pending in various High Court about the amendment to paragraph 26 was considered vide item No. 7. In the meeting the Trustees themselves found that though amendment is found to be valid, the delivery system of services is found to be inadequate, the Trustees therefore felt that scheme as per amended para 26 should be applied to Employees other than peripatetic Employees until new work procedure is evolved. Further, the Trustees also expressed that casual or temporary Employees who were not employed for 30 days in 45 days would not be eligible to become member of provident fund. In this background the determination of said question about casual employees as decided by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in case number ATA – 9 (6) 98 between Forest Development Corporation of Maharasthra v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. also in the order dated 23/3/2005 passed by Appellate Tribunal in appeal ATA number 966(12) 2004 between BSNL v. Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udipur which holds that purpose of Act is not to collect money and declares that amount cannot be assessed or recovered before the workers/beneficiaries are identified. Similar view was also taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment between Food Corporation of India v. Provident Fund Commissioner reported at in this respect.

17. We further respectfully submit that the News paper establishments to whom the provisions of EPF Act made applicable were given an exemption by addition one more provision in the PF scheme which reads as follows : PARA; 80 of the EPF SCHEME ;- Para-26: Class of employees entitled and required to join the fund: 1 (a) Every news paper employee employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any new paper establishment to which the scheme applies, other than an excluded employee shall be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the beginning of the month following that in which this paragraph comes into force in such establishment, if on the date of such coming into force he has completed (three months continuous service) or has actually worked for not less than 60 days during a period of three months or less and in that news paper establishment to which Act applies under the same employer are partly in one or partly in the other or has been declared permanent in any such factory or other news paper establishment whichever is earliest. This provision was incorporated under the EPF scheme vide GSR No. 130 dated 16.1.1982. In view of the above said provision under the Scheme, the news paper employees are not entitled to become the members immediately after joining in the employment and they have to necessarily work minimum period of three months continuously or 60 days during a period of three months whichever is less, failing which they are not entitled to become members of the act. 18. Similarly, Para 81 of the EPF scheme deals with special provisions in the case of Cine workers and a special paragraph was incorporated in the EPF scheme which reads as follows: Class of employees entitled and required to join the fund: 1(a) Every cine worker to whom this scheme applies other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the beginning of the month following that in which this paragraph comes into force, if on the date of such come into force he had worked in not less than three feature films with one or more producers. After this paragraph comes into force in film production unit every cine worker thereof, other than an excluded employee who has not become a member already shall also be entitled and required to become a member from the beginning of the month following that in which he completes work in three feature films in that production unit and another such unit to which the Act applies under the same producer or partly in one and partly in the other. 19. It is submitted that the worker in the construction activity are also migrant and they are not working with the same employer and the identification of such workers are very difficult and therefore, the same provision of law which made applicable to the employees of news paper establishments and the cine workers may also be made applicable for the employees working in the construction industry also particularly in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances 20. For all the reasons mentioned above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Minister be pleased to issue necessary directions to exempt the employees of construction and infrastructure industry from

para 26 of the EPF act by exercising the powers under section 16 (2) of the Employees provident fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and or consequently insert a similar provision on par with the News paper establishments and Cinema Industry in the EPF scheme, otherwise we will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss. 21. We further respectfully submit that in case of any further clarification with regard to the above said issues, we may be given an opportunity of personal hearing to put forth our suggestions and to produce relevant documents. Thanking you, Yours faithfully -Sd/- B.Seenaiah President Builders Association of India

Ref: 304/O/2013-14 dated October 8, 2013

Shri Oscar Fernandes Ji Hon’ble Minister for Labour & Employment, Government of India, Room No. 120, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Restoration of E.P.F Circular No. 7(1)2012/Rcs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012.

Respected Sir, Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex All India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 14,000 business entities as members through its 135 plus Centres (Branches) throughout the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvements in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problem faced by the construction industry. Amended Section 26 of the E.P.F. Act, 1952 effective from 19th October 1990, stipulated eligibility criteria for migratory and peripatetic workers to become a member of P.F. Scheme, is from the date of joining the establishment. This impractical amendment compelled Contractors and Trade Association including Builders’ Association of India (BAI) to approach various High Courts explaining the difficulty of implementing the amended provision of the Act. Mumbai High Court’s Order in Writ Petition No. 2593 of 1997 on 28th February 2008 filed by Builders’ Association of India against Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur, and Patna High Court’s Order in Writ Petition No.11499 of 2006 on 20th July 2012 filed by Roxy Cinema against State of Bihar & Another as well many Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal orders directed Provident Fund Authorities as under:-

1. Contribution of workers and employers towards Provident Fund is not a collection of Cess, levy or tax by the E.P.F. Department. It is a forced saving for the employees to be utilized by them on or after his retirement. Therefore, the beneficiaries must be identified before collection of P.F. dues intimated to Employer under Section 7A Enquiry, so that Provident Fund amount reaches beneficiaries.

Provident Fund Act having no limitation period unlike all other Acts. Department at times seeks records from Employers of last more than 7/10 years, which is normally not available. This prompted Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in case of M/s. Ropar Power Thermal Station V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to state as follows:-

…/…

: 2 :

2. According to Rules of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules 1971, all the registers and other records shall be preserved for a period of three calendar years from the date of entry therein. Hence, the Appellant Contractors can not be directed to produce the records pertaining to workers for the long back period. In light of various judicial pronouncements as well as BAI’s various representations resulted the then Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Shri R.C. Mishra, issued a Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012 (copy enclosed), emphasising the following:- 1. ‘Limitation period’ for seeking records from a Contractor, assessing the Provident Fund

contribution be eight years.

2. ‘Identification of workers’ before levying E.P.F. collection from the Contractor. However, the said Circular have been kept in abeyance by a Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/21224 dated 18th December 2012 (copy enclosed) issued by Shri Ravi Mathur, Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Sir, through this letter we earnestly request you to kindly restore Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012, which is in accordance with various judicial pronouncement. It will be our honour to brief you this matter in person, if you kindly grant us an audience-at any dated and time convenient to you. Thanking you,

Yours truly,

B. SEENAIAH PRESIDENT

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Encl : Circular Dated 30th Nov 2012

No. BAI/DO/42/2014 Dated: 21st January 2014 Shri Oscar Fernandes Ji Hon’ble Minister for Labour & Employment, Government of India, Room No. 120, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Restoration of E.P.F Circular No. 7(1)2012/Rcs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012.

Respected Sir, Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex All India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 14,000 business entities as members through its 135 plus Centres (Branches) throughout the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvements in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problem faced by the construction industry. Amended Section 26 of the E.P.F. Act, 1952 effective from 19th October 1990, stipulated eligibility criteria for migratory and peripatetic workers to become a member of P.F. Scheme, is from the date of joining the establishment. This impractical amendment compelled Contractors and Trade Association including Builders’ Association of India (BAI) to approach various High Courts explaining the difficulty of implementing the amended provision of the Act. In light of various judicial pronouncements as well as BAI’s various representations resulted the then Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Shri R.C. Mishra, issued a Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012 (copy enclosed), emphasising the following:-

i) ‘Limitation period’ for seeking records from a Contractor, assessing the Provident Fund contribution be eight years. ii) ‘Identification of workers’ before levying E.P.F. collection from the Contractor.

However, the said Circular have been kept in abeyance by a Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/21224 dated 18th December 2012 issued by Shri Ravi Mathur, Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Shri B Seenaiah, President-Builders’ Association of India, vide his letter No. 304/O/2013-14 dated October 8, 2013, addressed to Late Shri Sis Ram Ola, the then Hon’ble Minister for Labour & Employment made an earnest request to the Hon’ble Minister to restore Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012, which is in accordance with various judicial pronouncement. The letter under reference is once again is sent herewith with a request to restore Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012,

Thanking you,

Yours truly,

S. S. ARORA Executive Officer-Delhi Office

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Encl : As above.

Ref: 333/N/2014-15 dated November 19, 2014 Shri Bandaru Dattatreya Hon’ble Minister of State for Labour & Employment (Independent Charge) Government of India Room No.120, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

Sub: Restoration of E.P.F. Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012.

Respected Sir,

Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex all India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 15,000 business entities as members through its 148 plus Centres (Branches) throughout the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvements in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problems faced by the construction industry. Most of the Construction workers are traditionally migratory, peripatetic, seasonal & temporary workers who work at a site for a particular job role and when the job is finished in a few months, migrate to another site under a different employer situated at a different place anywhere in the country. Because of this peculiar & unique nature of construction worker, provident Fund when it became applicable to construction workers in 1981 had a qualifying period of 240 days of continuous employment.

However, through successive amendments and lastly through amended Section 26 of the E.P.F. Act, 1952 effective from 19th October 1990, stipulated eligibility criteria for migratory and peripatetic construction workers to become a member of E.P.F. Scheme, became from the date of joining the establishment. In contrast, we would like to bring to your kind attention to the fact that, para 80 and 81 of the E.P.F. Scheme specify qualifying period for employees in Newspaper establishments, a continuous service of 60 days, and qualifying period of three feature films for Cine workers, to be a

Member of Provident Fund contribution. We believe, Sir, that for construction workers too, there ought to be a qualifying period.

Another peculiar aspect of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act is, it has no ‘limitation period’, whereas Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 has a limitation period of 5 years for the purpose of coverage under the Act. Sir, we therefore request you to kindly consider introduction of similar limitation period for Employees Provident Fund Act too. Further, judicial pronouncements by various High Courts that, “identification of worker is a must before collection of Provident Fund”, resulted very rightly in issue of a Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meetingin/345 dated 30th November 2012 (copy enclosed), by the then Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Shri R. C.. Mishra, emphasising the following:- 1. ‘Limitation period’ for seeking records from a Contractor, for assessing the Provident Fund

contribution be eight years.

2. ‘Identification of workers’ before levying E.P.F. collection from the Contractor. However, the said Circular have been kept in abeyance by a further Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/21224 dated 18th December 2012 (copy enclosed) issued by Shri Ravi Mathur, Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Sir, through this letter we earnestly request you to kindly restore the aforesaid Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012, which is in accordance with various judicial pronouncements. It will be our honour to brief you on this matter in person, if you kindly grant us an audience at any date and time convenient to you. Thanking you,

Yours truly,

SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Dated : 29.10.2014 The Honourable Prime Minister, Government of India. PMO office 7, Race course Road New Delhi.

Sub : Applicability of Employee’s Provident Fund Act to all temporary, migratory, peripatetic seasonal Construction workers.

Respected Sir, Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex all India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 15,000 business entities as members through its 148 plus centres (Branches) spread across the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvement in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problems faced by the Construction industry. Most of the Construction workers are traditionally migratory, peripatetic, seasonal & temporary workers who work at a site for a particular job role and when the the job is finished in a few months, migrate to another site under a different employer & situated anywhere in the country, where scope for his job role exits . Because of this peculiar & unique nature of construction worker , it has been extremely difficult to implement the Provident Fund Act, which became applicable to all construction workers in 1980 with a qualifying criterion of 3 months of continuing service. However, from 19.10.1990, suddenly it became applicable to all workers including those who work for even one day ! This created a very difficult situation both for the workers as well as the employer. The poor workers could not keep track of innumerable PF accounts being created by several employers in a year and, as a result, the money being contributed from the wages of the workers as well as an equal amount from the employer, meant for the welfare of the concerned worker, never reach him or her. Instead the money keep on fattening the unclaimed amount of provident fund. Thus, the basic purpose of the fund,

i e, welfare of the workers, remained a dream till date. For employers, the situation is equally bad since very few workers is willing to contribute to the fund because of the experience that the money will never come back and as a result the situation on date is that to comply with the provisions of the act the employer has to pay both the shares, i e, the workers as well as the employers’ which was never the principle of the act. Sir, even the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 2.5.1995, against civil writ petition (no.702 of 1992), passed a judgment to the effect that Employer shall deduct & deposit in provident Fund with Respondent(Provident Fund Department) only on respondent complying with modified scheme “ The modified scheme referred to is a scheme submitted by the provident Fund authority through an Affidavit about an Accounting procedure wherein each worker shall be issued a 10 digit permanent unique number to be generated by P.F. authority. The unique number would enable the holder to have a permanent account irrespective of identity of the employer, place of work etc. and through this number, the worker would be able to access and operate his account through any of the PF offices in the country. We understand this has been launched by the Department only on 16th October, 2014 after almost 20 years. In the meantime, there were lot of confusions, difficulties and harassments of all concerned including the workers & employers. The construction companies were subjected to enquiry w/s 7(a) of the P.F.Act and huge demands were raised without identification of beneficiary workers, as if contribution to provident fund is an act of payment of statutory taxes or cess. These created further confusion and courts were again moved. The Nagpur bench of Mumbai High Court passed an order on 28.02.2006 stating that Provident Fund being a social security for casual & temporary workers, no deduction be made before identification of workers, so that benefit can reach him. Central Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter issued a circular bearing no. 7(12) 2012/RCS – Review meeting dated 30.11.2012 stating that orders under section 7/A be passed only after identification of workers and that too for a minimum period of past 7 years. However, for reasons unknown, the circular was withdrawn on 18.12.2013. Sir, from the above it is clear that the prevalent chaotic situation in the applicability of provident Fund to temporary, casual, peripatetic & migratory construction workers, is helping almost nobody’s cause and instead bringing miseries to the workers as well as to the entire construction Industry. As on date, this is one problem which has the potential of ruining the entire construction Industry. Sir, we pray to you to kindly look into this matter so that these operational problems are solved to the benefit of all concerned and the very purpose of the Provident Fund, i. e, saving money for the future in a carefully planned way, is achieved . Sir, we request you to kindly grant us an audience so that we may explain further in person and settle once for all this decades old problem with your vision & understanding.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Builders’ Association of India SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT No. BAI/DO/2015/42 Date: 23rd February 2015 The Under Secretary (SS-II Section), Minister of State for Labour & Employment Government of India Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 Sub: Amendment to the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act

Respected Sir,

Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex all India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 15,000 business entities as members through its 150 plus Centres (Branches) throughout the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvements in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problems faced by the construction industry.

We are thankful to the Ministry of Labour & Employment for inviting views / suggestions for

amendment of the EPF & MP Act 1952 from the Ministries and the various trade bodies. Builders’ Association of India, being the largest employer of labour through its member construction entities all over India, is pleased to submit the suggestions, particularly for the Construction Workers who are temporary, migratory, seasonal & peripatetic in Nature for kind consideration of the Ministry. It will highly appreciated if the suggestions submitted by the Association are given due weightage while amending the Act.

Thanking

Yours truly,

SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

No.BAI/DC/30/2015/05 January 13, 2015 Shri Beerbal Meena Regional PF Commissioner-1, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India), Regional Office : Delhi (South), EPFO Complex, Plot No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075

Sub: Suggestions as per the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in:

i) C.M. No.17954/2014 in LPA 727/2014 – SDB Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ( formerly Som Datt Builders Pvt Ltd ) & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.

ii) C.M. No.17968/2014 in LPA 728/2014- Builders Association of India & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors

iii) C.M.No.18106/2014 in LPA 729/2014 - SDB Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

(formerly Som Datt Builders Pvt Ltd) & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors

iv) C.M.No. 18108/2014 in LPA 730/2222014 - Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors

Respected Sir, We write to you further to the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the abovementioned appeals and your letter dated 08.01.2015 issued pursuant thereto. The core issue which is of concern and is being addressed is the casual worker in constructions industry being able to avail the benefit of Provident Fund.

The situation of the causal worker in a construction industry is extremely unique and incomparable to the workers, casual or otherwise, of any other industry. In the construction industry the casual workers is truly migrant. A worker may work with one employer at a particular site on a given day and with an employer at another site the next day. During this frequent migration the worker travels from one state to the other. There is no fixed time or tenure for the worker to be in the employment of any particular employee. Had that been the case no problem would have arisen. Since the casual worker of the construction industry was sought to be covered from the first day of joining, there have been litigations and lack of transparency right from day one when the notification dated 19.10.1990 was issued. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) is the Custodian/ Trustee of the funds, the ultimate beneficiary of which is the casual worker. The role and aim of EPFO is to ensure that every single rupee that is deducted in relation to a particular causal worker, which is the fruit of his blood and sweat, is available to him at the hour of need. Presently, the scenario is to the contrary inasmuch as that large amounts are lying with the EPFO, which are unclaimed because the workman who is entitled to the benefit of it is either unable to access the same and/ or is not identifiable at the relevant time. Thus, the very purpose of the act is being defeated. You will agree that the EPFO, is not a tax collection agency which should focus on mere collection without having a simultaneous process to ensure distribution and making available the benefits to the workman. These two acts go hand and hand and even if one of them is not performed and /or cannot be performed it leads to a ruinous state of affairs, as have arisen in the present case. The EPFO had submitted the revised accounting scheme, duly approved by the Central Board of Trustees in their 129th meeting, before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 792 of 1991 being M/s. Pyare Lal Hari Singh & Others V/s. Union of India & Others. The said scheme was duly accepted by the Hon’ble High Court and it was directed that the same would be applicable for the casual workers of construction industry. The modified scheme envisaged issuance of the permanent unique number as well as the centralized accounting system as mentioned therein to have complete account portability. Till date only the unique number has been generated and that too from July, 2014 onwards. Furthermore, the centralized accounting system is yet not in place. In the absence of the same, there is complete and utter lack of transparency and it is not only the beneficiary i.e. the workmen but also the employers who are suffering. In the spirit of the highly progressive order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the above appeals, and the above submissions, we respectfully suggest as under: i) The centralized accounting system should be put in place expeditiously. This will ensure

complete portability. Like an ATM in a bank, where, the workman can go to any EPFO office in any state, city etc. near his place of work or residence, village etc. and have access to his account and also avail the benefit of the money deposited in his account.

ii) The Aadhaar Card/ Voter ID Card could be considered for the purpose of having the address of

the workman. Intimation to the workman by way of registered notices and at the registered mobile number of workman, if available, through SMS, both in English and Hindi language, should be evolved.

iii) The bank account of the workman, if available, should be linked with the EPFO account so that

remittance can be made accordingly and the passbook of the bank could be made to reflect the account status of the workman with the EPFO. More and more persons are opening bank accounts particularly in view of the initiative taken by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.

iv) The EPFO should accept and acknowledge that in the construction industry, workmen are

brought from deep rural areas where it is virtually impossible for employers to contact or reach the workmen. Such workmen are engaged through contractors/ sub contractors/ piece rate workers, who are usually persons from the same village of the contractors or are frequently engaged by them or have other workmen in their group/ gang who are from the same village. These contractors/ sub contractors/ piece rate workers should be identified and mentioned in relation to the workmen concerned as there is greater accessibility to such contractors/ sub contractors/ piece rate workers. Such contractors/ sub contractors/ piece rate workers can also be instrumental in locating/ identification of the concerned workmen. However, this is all possible if some timelines are prescribed, and not after a lapse of several years.

v) Awareness should be created by holding camps with the workmen so that they can be made

aware of the benefits of Provident Fund and how to access and avail the said benefits. In the absence of such awareness with the workers they are reluctant and in fact resistant to deduction of Provident Fund.

vi) Scheme should be devised so that in case the money is available in the account of a workman

but no Claimant has come forwards, the same should reach the worker or his legal heir as the case may be. After all, the money is for the benefit of that particular workman and is not meant to be kept unused and lying as deposited with the EPFO. If the money does not reach the workman, the entire purpose is defeated.

vii) Responsibility and accountability is a form of transparency. Accountability should not be

confined only to the employer but also towards the EPFO. In case of money which has been deducted and deposited by the employer with the EPFO is not ultimately made available to the workman, the EPFO should take the responsibility of ensuring that it is eventually disbursed to the concerned workman. The concerned representative should be asked to submit the efforts made by them and the result thereof. If no effort is made, they should be asked the reasons for not doing so.

viii) In order to maintain transparency and prevent arbitrariness and discrimination specified period

should be prescribed for which the employer should be made liable to maintain records concerning the payment of provident fund for a workman, it can be 2-3 years. Providing a prescribed period will have several advantages. Firstly, every employer will be obliged to maintain the record for the specified period and will not have an excuse of lack of records being available. Presently, there is no such period and, therefore, (a) notices are issued by the department for period which can be even 10-15 years old and for which duration no employer is obliged to maintain the records; (b) in the absence of such records and/or proper enquiry the correct assessment of provident funds can neither be nor is it actually carried out. This gives rise to unwarranted and undesired practices. This will be curbed if a prescribed period is known to all. The department shall also be active as they will be aware that they have to carry out the

assessment within a prescribed period. Furthermore, the contact of the contractors/ sub contractors/ piece rate workers and the workman himself will be easy and available.

ix) Enquiry proceedings should not be initiated whimsically and unreasonably. There must be

reasons which should exist for initiation of enquiry, and which reasons should be borne out from the record, as is also the case even with the Income Tax. It will be noticed that pre-printed cyclostyled notices are sent without any reasons as to what has prompted the initiation of enquiry. Such practices, which primarily result in arbitrariness and harassment should be curbed.

x) The purpose of the enquiry proceedings should be to ensure that the benefit reaches the

concerned workman. It is with this aim and objective that the enquiry proceedings should be initiated and finally concluded. However, this aim and objective is being completely disregarded and enquiry proceedings are being conducted with the sole objective of somehow being able to penalize the employer. There should be proper system of adjudication in the enquiry proceedings, so as to ensure the benefit reaches the workman.

xi) All the proceedings in the enquiry should be duly minute and proper system should be

prescribed and laid down for the filing of submissions. The records should reflect the same. Often it is seen that the filing and submissions are not taken note off and are ignored.

xii) Through successive amendments and lastly through amended Para 26 of the framed under

E.P.F. Act, 1952 effective from 19th October 1990, stipulated eligibility criteria for migratory and peripatetic construction workers to become a member of E.P.F. Scheme from the date of joining the establishment. In contrast, we would like to bring to your kind attention to the fact that, para 80 and 81 of the E.P.F. Scheme specify qualifying period for employees in Newspaper establishments which is, a continuous service of 60 days, and qualifying period of three feature films for Cine workers for becoming be a Member of Provident Fund contribution. We believe, Sir, that for construction workers too, there ought to be a qualifying period.

xiii) The Employees’ Provident Fund Act has no ‘limitation period’, whereas Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 has a limitation period of 5 years for the purpose of coverage under the said Act. Contract labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act 1970 prescribes a period of 3 years for maintain a record. There ought to be introduction of similar limitation period for Employees Provident Fund Act too. In our view 3 years period will be ideal.

xiv) Since PF authority have started issuing an unique number to each member only from July

2014 onwards, and the number can be used by the member irrespective of place of work and identity of the employer, let us start implementing the scheme with all sincerity and honesty of purpose cover all construction workers from a starting point, say 1st January 2015.

xv) Since the process of issuance of this unique number may take some more time to achieve

coverage of 100% workers and the system needs some breathing time to earn worker’s faith in it, we propose to begin with only the employers’ share, i.e. each worker will be covered and the fund will be of only the employer’s share.

xvi) Since it will be a beginning of a new era of transparency and honesty of purpose, let us start with all goodwill and sincerity and without any hangover and confusion from the past.

Sir, we believe once this is implemented, the Government will achieve its goal of extending the social welfare scheme to construction workers; the workers will gain the protection of this unique social welfare scheme; the industry will benefit from a more satisfying workforce and of course, the society will be benefitted with a large group of content members. Needless to mention the additional productivity that will be a natural corollary to this effort. The present suggestions are being submitted on behalf of the appellants in the abovementioned appeals pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, and are in addition to the suggestions, if any, already suggested by any company, who is an Appellant in the abovementioned appeals. Sir, we hope that the above suggestions would be duly considered by you in the right spirit and perspective. After all it is not an adversarial proceeding, that we are in. The sole purpose being the benefit should be able to reach the workman. Sir, we strongly feel that it is time we forget the past and look into basic objectives of the scheme and move towards the same jointly so that it becomes a win win situation for the construction workers, the society, the Government and of course, the construction industry. We assure you sir, as usual we, with our 150 centres across the country will organize seminars and workshops and help and convince the people about the good reasons to participate in the scheme and we shall meet success as in the case of VAT when in 2005, through our efforts there was a painless transition for construction industry from sales tax regime to VAT regime in the entire country. We reserve our right to submit further suggestions. Yours sincerely, (S. S ARORA ) Executive Officer Copy to :- The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14- Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 for information & perusal please. Note : The above letter have also been sent through email at 13.15 hrs. on Wednesday, the 14th January 2015 from email address of ssarora51@gmail.com to

1) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I at ro.delhi.south@epfindia.gov.in 2) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner at cpfc@epfindia.gov.in

No.BAI/DO/42/2015 Date: 12th January 2015

Shri Bandaru Dattatreya Hon’ble Minister of State for Labour & Employment ( Independent Charge) Government of India Room No.120, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001

Sub: Amendment of PF ACT & RULES for Construction Workers who are temporary, migratory, seasonal & peripatetic in Nature.

Respected Sir,

Builders’ Association of India (BAI) is an apex all India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941, with more than 15,000 business entities as members through its 148 plus Centres (Branches) throughout the country. The fundamental aim of the Association is to bring about all round improvements in the construction sector, while striving towards resolution of operational as well as policy level problems faced by the construction industry. Most of the Construction workers are traditionally migratory, peripatetic, seasonal & temporary workers who work at a site for a particular job role and when the job is finished in a few months, migrate to another site under a different employer situated at a different place anywhere in the country. Because of this peculiar & unique nature of construction worker, provident Fund when it became applicable to construction workers in 1981 had a qualifying period of 240 days of continuous employment.

However, through successive amendments and lastly through amended Section 26 of the E.P.F. Act, 1952 effective from 19th October 1990, stipulated eligibility criteria for migratory and peripatetic construction workers to become a member of E.P.F. Scheme, became from the date of joining the establishment. In contrast, we would like to bring to your kind attention to the fact that, para 80 and 81 of the E.P.F. Scheme specify qualifying period for employees in Newspaper establishments, a continuous service of 60 days, and qualifying period of three feature films for Cine workers, to be a Member of Provident Fund contribution. We believe, Sir, that for construction workers too, there ought to be a qualifying period.

Another peculiar aspect of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act is, it has no ‘limitation period’, whereas Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 has a limitation period of 5 years for the purpose of coverage under the Act. Sir, we feel that there ought to be introduction of similar limitation period for Employees Provident Fund Act too.

Further, judicial pronouncements by various High Courts that, “identification of worker is a must before collection of Provident Fund”, resulted very rightly in issue of a Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012, issued by the then Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Shri R. C.. Mishra, emphasizing the following:-

1. ‘Limitation period’ for seeking records from a Contractor, for assessing the Provident Fund contribution be seven years.

2. ‘Identification of workers’ before levying E.P.F. collection from the Contractor.

However, the said Circular have been kept in abeyance by a further Circular No.7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/21224 dated 18th December 2012, issued by Shri Ravi Mathur, Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Sir, we strongly feel that it is time we forget the past and look into basic objectives of the scheme and move towards the same jointly so that it becomes a win win situation for the construction workers, the society, the Government and of course, the construction industry. Our suggestions are:

a. Since PF authority have started issuing an unique number to each member and the number can be used by the member irrespective of place of work and identity of the employer, let us start implementing the scheme with all sincerity and honesty of purpose cover all construction workers from a starting point, say 1st January 2015.

b. Since the process of issuance of this unique number may take some more time to achieve

coverage of 100% workers and the system needs some breathing time to earn worker’s faith in it, we propose to begin with only the employers’ share, i.e. each worker will be covered and the fund will be of only the employer’s share.

c. Since it will be a beginning of a new era of transparency and honesty of purpose, let us start with all goodwill and sincerity and without any hangover and confusion from the past.

d. Lastly, it shall have to be enforced very strictly for all the establishment and for of all the

workers, since no establishment should be able to garner any extra advantage by skipping the scheme and thus obtain some ill-gotten edge over their competitor in a tendering process.

Sir, we believe once this is implemented, the Government will achieve its goal of extending the social welfare scheme to construction workers; the workers will gain the protection of this unique social welfare scheme; the industry will benefit from a more satisfying workforce and of course, the society will be benefitted with a large group of content members. Needless to mention the additional productivity that will be a natural corollary to this effort.

We assure you sir, as usual we, with our 150 centres across the country will organize seminars and workshops and help and convince the people about the good reasons to participate in the scheme and we shall meet success as in the case of VAT when in 2005, through our efforts there was a painless transition for construction industry from sales tax regime to VAT regime in the entire country.

It will be our honour to brief you on this matter in person, if you kindly grant us an audience at any date and time convenient to you. Thanking you,

Yours truly,

SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

No.BAI/DO/42/2015 Date: 10th March 2015 Shri Bandaru Dattatreya Hon’ble Minister of State for Labour & Employment ( Independent Charge) Government of India Room No.120, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001

Sub : Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund – Nomination of members. Respected Sir

Builders’ Association of India is an apex all India body of Engineering Construction Contractors, founded in 1941 at Pune, and continuously serving the Construction Industry for the last 74 years. This is the largest body of employers in the country.

Our Head quarter is in Mumbai and we have 150 centres spread across the country including one in Andaman & Nicobar Islands and one in the far east at Tejpur, Assam. We have more than 15000 direct members and, inclusive of strength of our members of affiliated Associations, it will be more than a lakh of members. We are a very active & vibrant body being run in a very transparent way through democrative process. In our general Council / Managing Committee meetings held at least 4-5 times a year more than 300 members participate in the deliberations and take suitable decisions concerning the construction industry.

Sir, in the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, which is chaired by you, there are provisions for inducting members from employers side and it will only be fitting with facts if, being the largest body of Employers in the country, our association, Builders’ Association of India, is also represented in the aforesaid board; construction industry being the 2nd largest employer of workforce, this will also be in line with the country’s present aspirations to bring 100% workforce under the umbrella of this social scheme.

Sir, we request you to kindly consider the above proposal and, it will be an honour for us to personally brief you in this matter, if you kindly give us an audience on any day of your convenience.

Thanking you, Yours truly,

SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU PRESIDENT

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Ref: 08/A/2015-16 dated April 6, 2015

The Hon’ble Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, Shram Sharkti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001

Sub: Reissuance of letter No. 7(12)/2012/RCS-Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November 2012 issued by Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Copy Enclosed).

Respected Sir,

Builders Association of India congratulates E.P.F. Authority in issuing of social security numbers to beneficiaries of provident Fund to migrant construction sector workers. It may however be noted that despite this number identification of workers being the beneficiaries is quite essential before any assessment/demand is made on contractors.

Needless to state that this principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in pronouncement reported at (2008) 5 SCC 756, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and (1990) 1 SCC 68, Food Corporation of India v/s. Provident Fund Commissioner & Others. Supreme Court being the ultimate authority to interpret law of land, it is absolutely essential to reissue circular caption above.

Another issue the caption circular dealt with was limitation of seven year period for assessment of Provident Fund dues. Normally all tax laws have 3 year limitation period. Provident Fund being social security Act has no limitation period. Employers State Insurance scheme, a social health care act, has 5 years limitation period. It is therefore requested that for Provident Fund limitation period be kept 5 years.

Thanking you, Yours truly,

SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU IMM . PAST PRESIDENT

BUILDERS ’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA