AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Nagaresh, J
The petitioners, who claim to be contract workers engaged for the work of the 1st respondent-BSNL, are before this Court alleging that the 4th
respondent, who is the immediate employer, has not remitted the ESI and EPF contributions payable statutorily. The petitioners filed Ext.P5 complaint
before the General Manager, BSNL bringing to the notice of the BSNL this fact and requiring to take immediate steps. As the BSNL has not taken
any steps, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to direct respondents 1 to 3 to enquire into Ext.P5 complaint and take necessary action
thereon to ensure the statutory benefits available to the petitioners without any defeasance.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioners are not workers engaged by respondents 1 to 3 and
no relief against respondents 1 to 3 can be granted in this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that they are not the principal employers of the petitioners for the purpose of
EPF and ESI. However, the petitioners claim that they are workmen engaged by the 4th respondent.
In the circumstances, if the petitioners have any grievance regarding non remittance of ESI and EPF contribution by their employer, the petitioners
have to approach the competent authorities under the Employees State Insurance Act and Employees Provident Fund Act.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioners against respondents 1 to 3, but at the same time, permitting the
petitioners to agitate their grievance before the competent authorities under the Employees State Insurance Act and Employees Provident Fund Act.