JUDGMENT Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 10th March, 1993 in which the learned trial Judge directed that pending the hearing of the writ application, subject to the petitioners' securing 50% of the determined amount by way of a Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, within a period of one month from date, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings in respect of the aforesaid amount. In any event an unconditional stay was granted for a period of one month. The fact of this case in short is that the appellant-petitioner is a Private Limited Company and owns a factory which is engaged in manufacturing Biris at Aurangabad, in the district of Murshidabad. It is admitted that the said establishment is covered by the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder and a Code number has already been allotted to the said establishment. It is not in dispute that the appellants petitioners in the usual course of business get kutcha Bid rolled through the contractors and/or agents and/or Sattadars and/or Munshies. The said contractors and/or agents in the usual course of business take up all the raw materials daily, namely, Bid tobacco, Kendu leaves thread for the purpose of manufacturing Biris, branded and unbranded, and hand over the said articles in small quantity to different persons to roll or bind Kutcha Biris in their respective houses. The said contractors also on their turn, again collect the Kutcha biris from the said persons and deliver it to the Biri manufacturers, namely the appellants-petitioners. The contractors on submitting their bids obtain the remuneration of the persons who rolled biris at their home or residence including the commission and/or remuneration of the contractors. The persons who roll such biris are normally called 'Home Workers'. The appellant-petitioners were paying provident fund dues and other statutory dues in respect of the regular employees of the establishment. A question arose whether the appellant company is also liable to pay its provident fund contribution in respect of the said Home Workers. 2. Admittedly, the said Home Workers have no direct relationship of master and servant with the manufacturer of Biris viz. A question arose whether the appellant company is also liable to pay its provident fund contribution in respect of the said Home Workers. 2. Admittedly, the said Home Workers have no direct relationship of master and servant with the manufacturer of Biris viz. the appellant company and that the appellant company is not in a position to know who were the home workers who had been engaged by the contractors though the contractors collect remuneration of such home workers everyday. 3. On 11th April, 1988 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the first time determined the provident fund dues of such home workers for the period from October, 1985 to October, 1987 for an amount of Rs. 17,18,750/-. The appellant company challenged the said determination in C.O. No. 6597 (W) of 1988 whereupon the learned Judge, The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherjee was pleased to issue an interim order on June 9, 1988 directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not to give effect to the said determination. The said Civil :Order ultimately came up for hearing before Kalyanmoy Ganguly, J. on 23rd June, 1992 and the said Civil Order was finally disposed of by the learned Judge by directing the appellants-petitioners to supply the names of the contractors with full particulars engaged by them for getting the biri rolled through their own Home Workers. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was also directed to issue notice .to such contractors. The Contractors are also directed to produce list of names of the workers engaged by them for rolling biris at their residence within a stipulated period. The Regional Provident Commissioner thereafter granted leave to assess the Provident Fund dues in respect of such Home Workers in accordance with law after giving the appellants and the contractors an opportunity of hearing till such time the matter is decided. The interim order of injunction was directed to continue. 4. After the said writ application in Civil Order No. 6597 (W) of 1988 was disposed of as above, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had not taken any step for re-determination of the dues inspite of the fact that the appellants furnished the names of the contractors within the stipulated time. The interim order of injunction was directed to continue. 4. After the said writ application in Civil Order No. 6597 (W) of 1988 was disposed of as above, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had not taken any step for re-determination of the dues inspite of the fact that the appellants furnished the names of the contractors within the stipulated time. The matter is still pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh determination and assessment for the period of October, 1985 to October, 1987 which was the subject matter of the said writ application. Similar order was passed by the said learned trial Judge in various other matters. It appears that the Provident Fund Commissioner leaving aside the assessment and determination of the dues from October, 1985 to October, 1987 initiated a proceeding under s. 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the subsequent period from November, 1987 to February, 1989. In the said proceeding the appellants submitted the list of contractors with the full particulars. It also appears that out of 32 contractors only one contractor, Sri Dulupada Sinha, appeared before the Provident Fund Commissioner. The said Dulupada Sinha claimed that he engaged 35 home workers for rolling biris under him. It was admitted by the said Dulupada Sinha that he himself handed over the rolled biris to the Company and obtained wages and remuneration for such rolled biris together with commission. It is alleged that notwithstanding the fact that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had been given power under s. 7 A of the Act of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 to enforce the attendance of any person and also to act as specifically provided under s. 7A(2) the authorities concerned failed and neglected to enforce the attendance of the home workers nor asked for the list of the home workers from the contractor who appeared before the said authorities. It is stated that without identifying the home workers and without ascertaining their names and particulars and the number of such home workers the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner determined the dues to the tune of Rs. 12,71,109. 20 P. on January 22, 1993 for the period from November, 1987 to February. 1989. It is stated that without identifying the home workers and without ascertaining their names and particulars and the number of such home workers the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner determined the dues to the tune of Rs. 12,71,109. 20 P. on January 22, 1993 for the period from November, 1987 to February. 1989. It appears that the Provident Fund dues were ascertained with reference to the contractors and the appellant company was made liable to pay the contributions of both the employer and the employees including the administrative charges for the said period. It also appears from the order under s. 7A of the said Act that the appellant company being the principal employer submitted the statement of payments made to each and every contractors in respect of the said work and solely on the basis of such statement regarding payment the determination was made for payment of the Provident Fund dues in respect of the said home workers retrospectively with effect from November, 1987 to February, 1989 by order dt. 22.1.93: From the said order under s. 7 A of the said Act it also appears that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued summons to the Contractors whose names were disclosed by the appellant company by registered post but none appeared and submitted any representation and the particulars of the home workers were not produced by the said contractors. With regard to the liability to pay the provident fund in respect of the biri home worker is concerned this point is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. P.M. Patel & Songs Vs. Union of India, reported AIR 1987 SC 447 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the definition of ‘employee’ in the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as provided under s.2(i) of the said Act is very wide. They include not only persons employed directly by the employer but also persons employed through the contractor. Moreover, they include not only persons employed in the factory but also persons employed in connection with the work of the factory. It was further held that a home worker, by virtue of the fact that he rolls biris is involved in an activity connected with the work of the factory engaged in the task of rolling biris. Moreover, they include not only persons employed in the factory but also persons employed in connection with the work of the factory. It was further held that a home worker, by virtue of the fact that he rolls biris is involved in an activity connected with the work of the factory engaged in the task of rolling biris. In that case it was held that the labour employed in the manufacture of biris consists of different categories. At the factory, which constitutes the formal establishment there is administrative and clerical staff, accountants, packers, checkers and bhattimen. The work of rolling the beedis itself is done by one or the other of different categories of workers. The work may be entrusted by the manufacturers directly to workers who prepared the beedis at home after obtaining a supply of raw materials consisting of tobacco, beedis-leaves and thread from the manufacturers. Another category consists of workers employed by the manufacturers through contractors, and the manufacturers pass on the raw materials to such workers for rolling the beedi in their dwelling houses, and there is, in a sense, direct relationship between the manufactures and those workers. The third category of home workers are those to whom the work is entrusted by independent contractors who treat the workers as their own employees and get the work done by them either at their own premises or in the dwelling houses of the workers in order to fulfil and complete the contracts entered into with the manufacturers for the supply of the finished product from the raw materials supplied by the manufacturers to the contractors. Accordingly, under the Provident Fund Scheme of 1952 in view of the definition of 'employee' excepting the 3rd category all home workers are covered under the provisions of the said Act and the manufacturers are liable to pay the Provident fund dues in respect of such home workers. It appears that the Supreme Court had not considered the effects of the provisions of the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966. It appears that the Supreme Court had not considered the effects of the provisions of the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966. In this Act, explanation of 'Contractor', 'Contract labour', 'employee' and 'employer' has been defined in s. 2 (d), 2(e), 2(f), and 2(g) which are as follows :- 2(d): 'Contractor' means a person who, in relation to a manufacturing process, undertakes to produce a given result by executing the work through contract labour or who engages labour for any manufacturing process, in a private dwelling-house and includes a sub-con" tractor, agent, munshi, thekedar or sattedar; 2(e) : 'Contract labour' means any person engaged or employed in any premises by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the employer" in any manufacturing process; 2(f) : 'employee' means a person employed directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any establishment to do any work, skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical and includes. . . . 2(g): 'employer' means,(a) in relation to contract labour, the principal employer, and (b) in relation to other labour, the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs to any establishment or who has, by reason of his advancing money, supplying goods or otherwise, a substantial interest in the control of the affairs of any establishment, and includes any other person to whom the affairs of the establishment are entrusted, whether such other person is called the managing agent, manager, superintendent or by any other name; 5. This Act left no scope for any such 3rd category of contractors as observed by the Supreme Court in M/s P.M. Patel & Sons' case. Under this Act any labour who is given raw material by an employer or a contractor for being made into beedis and cigarettes or both at home becomes a home worker and the employer is liable for payment of wages and other benefits as provided in this Act. Section 40 of this Act provides that the provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any inconsistence therein contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 43 of this Act provides that the provision of this Act shall not apply to self-employed person in private dwelling houses. Section 40 of this Act provides that the provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any inconsistence therein contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 43 of this Act provides that the provision of this Act shall not apply to self-employed person in private dwelling houses. This Act was enacted by Parliament for the welfare of the workers in Beedis and cigarettes establishment and to regulate the conditions of the work and the matters connected therewith. Turning to the facts of this case it appears that the subject matter of challenge was with regard to the determination made under s. 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by which an amount of Rs. 12,71,108.20P. was determined as provident fund liability in respect of the home workers from November, 1987 to February, 1989. This order was challenged firstly, on the ground that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has determined the liability solely on the basis of payment voucher indicating payment made by the petitioner company to its contractors without any reference and/or identification of the home workers in this behalf. It was also submitted that the Provident fund is levied and collected for the benefit of the workmen or the employees concerned but without determining and identifying who are employees and the workers, the provident fund demand could not be made and realised. If this is allowed to be done in that event the home workers for whose benefit the provident fund was realised will not get provident fund. It was alleged that the provident fund was not a tax or cess and/or any other levies. It is a fund in respect of the employees and/or workers concerned and accordingly, it was a mandatory duty on the part of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to find out after verification who are the home workers for whose behalf the provident fund was demanded and/or realised. It was further alleged that the Provident Fund Commissioner did not exercise the power as provided under s. 7A(2) of the said Act by not enforcing attendance of the contractors and/or home workers and examining them on oath for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not provisions of this Act was applicable and what was the amount of the provident fund dues payable by the petitioner in respect of such home workers. Secondly, it was contended that under paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme certain criteria have been laid down for becoming eligible to get provident fund which have not been fulfilled in this case. Thirdly, it was contended that the order was passed on 22nd January, 1993 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in respect of the said period from October, 1985 to October, 1987 making the petitioner liable both employer and employees' share. In this connection reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of District Exhibitors Association, Muzaffarnagar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 1381 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the payment of employees' contribution by the employer with the corresponding right to conduct the same from the wages of the employees could be only for the current period during which the employer has also to pay his contribution. In this case for the period from October 1, 1984 upto the date of the notification in question the employer had paid the full wages to the employees since during that period, there was no scheme) applicable to his establishment. By retrospectively applying the scheme, the employer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the employees, contribution for the retrospective period, since the employees had no right to deduct the same from the future wages payable to the employees. It was held that the employer could not have made the deduction prior to the notification in question dt. 30th April, 1986 since the scheme was not then applicable. It was further held that it was not also possible for the employer to make deduction from the subsequent wages of the workmen with the consent in writing of the Inspector as required under the 3rd proviso to para 32(1) of the Scheme, since the 3rd proviso could be taken advantage of by the employer only where no deduction has been made from the wages of the employees due to accidental mistake or clerical error when the scheme is operative which was not the case before the Supreme Court. 6. Mr. Balai Roy, learned counsel, appearing with Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel, submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had no liability to pay the demand which was not raised validly and on proper verification. 6. Mr. Balai Roy, learned counsel, appearing with Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel, submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had no liability to pay the demand which was not raised validly and on proper verification. It was further submitted that the levy of dues on account of employees contribution was invalid. It was further submitted that during 7A proceeding before the Provident Fund Commissioner the appellant company had produced the entire balance sheet showing the payment to the home workers through the contractors for the provident fund dues from November, 1987 to February, 1989 was calculated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 7. In our view, in view of the definition of the 'employee' as provided in s. 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Scheme, 1952 and the provision of the Beedi & Cigar Workers Condition of Employment) Act, 1966 clearly provides that the appellant company being the employer is bound to pay the provident fund in respect of the home workers engaged by the contractors and that this point is now already concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel's case. No case has been made out by the appellant company that the said contractors were independent contractors and not liable to pay provident fund as they fall within the third category laid down by in the Patel's case. The Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the provision of Beedi & Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act. 1966. Under this Act it appears that even the third category in respect of which the Supreme Court held not liable to pay provident fund also comes within the scope and ambit of the Provident Fund Act as the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 provides a comprehensive definition of the Contractors which include all the categories of contractors and as such there is no scope for getting any exemption on the plea that such contractors were independent contractors and comes within the exception as provided by the Supreme Court in Patel's case as falling under the third category. The liability in this case is the liability to pay provident fund was there from the very inception and not that the liability was imposed by an amendment of the Act or scheme or bringing the establishment under the scheme by a particular notification from a particular date. The liability in this case is the liability to pay provident fund was there from the very inception and not that the liability was imposed by an amendment of the Act or scheme or bringing the establishment under the scheme by a particular notification from a particular date. Accordingly, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of District Exhibitors Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1381 is not applicable. In this case by a notification made under the Act and the amendment of the scheme by virtue of a particular notification issued with effect from 1st October, 1984 the liability was fixed. But the employer had paid the wages of the worker earlier and there is no scope for deducting from the employees their contribution for the retrospective period and the notification dt. 30th April, 1986. It was a case where the employer could not have made deduction prior to the notification dt. 30th April, 1986 since the scheme was not then applicable. In the instant case there was a bona fide dispute regarding applicability of the Act to such an establishment and that it appears that not only the petitioner company but others in the trade were also under confusion and doubts about their liabilities under the Act and that in the absence of any provisions in the Act that the employer would be liable for the employees' share of contribution when no such deduction was made from the salaries and wages of the employees by the employer and that if the proceeding was started earlier and that the dispute was resolved fixing the liability to pay provident fund dues in that event the employer could have realised dues by deducting from the wages from such employees. Furthermore, the proviso to paragraph 32 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme provides that the amount of members contribution paid by the employer shall notwithstanding the provisions in the scheme or the liability for the time being in force or any contract to the contrary be recoverable by means of deduction from the wages of the employees or members and not otherwise. It was further provided that no such deduction can be made from any wages other than what was paid ill respect of the period or part of the period in respect of which the contribution is payable. It was further provided that no such deduction can be made from any wages other than what was paid ill respect of the period or part of the period in respect of which the contribution is payable. Only in case where no deduction had been made on account of an accidental mistake or clearical error, such deduction could be made with the consent in writing of the Inspector from the subsequent wages. This provision makes it clear that the employees' contribution should be paid only after making deduction from the wages paid to the employees by the employer and not otherwise. This is also made clear that in case employer failed to make deduction mid or in case where the liability was fixed subsequently the employer could not recover it from the wages for whose behalf payment was required to be made. Accordingly, we are of the view that the employer cannot be made liable to pay the employees' contribution from the date prior to the date of determination of the liability under s. 7A of the said Act and in respect of the period when the employer was not aware of the liability and could not make deduction from the wages paid to such an employee. Accordingly, in the absence of any provision requiring the employer to pay the employees' share in such circumstances we are unable to hold that the employer is liable even for the employees• share when deduction could not be made as the liability of the employer was not known and/or determination and the employer could not make any deduction. Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to exclude the determination of the liability of the employees' share imposed with retrospective effect in respect of the period 'when the employer could not deduct employees' share of the contribution of' the wages paid to the employees. 8. In the instant case it appears that the liability was fixed under s.7 A of the said Act only on the basis of the wages paid to some named contractors without any reference to the number of home workers. Provident fund dues had to be kept in the account of individual home workers. 8. In the instant case it appears that the liability was fixed under s.7 A of the said Act only on the basis of the wages paid to some named contractors without any reference to the number of home workers. Provident fund dues had to be kept in the account of individual home workers. Their name and address and/or their identity is required to be known by the provident fund authorities otherwise the person in whose favour the money is kept would not get it back when he was entitled to get it. Such sum could not be kept with reference to the contractors inasmuch as the contractors are not recipient of the benefit under the Act. We are of the view that in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall issue notice to the contractors in question for disclosing the name and address of the home workers in exercise of the power conferred upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under s. 7A(2) (a) (b) unless such a power is directed to be exercised, the identity and the particulars of the home workers could not be known and as in our view, no provident fund money could be kept on account of some unknown employees and workers. It must be remembered that this is not a tax or fee payable by the employer to the Provident Fund Commissioner. It is an act for the welfare of the employees and that the provident fund amount paid to the provident fund authorities are meant for the employees and/or workers and unless their identity is found out the purpose of the legislation will be frustrated. Accordingly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to issue summons to all the contractors for the purpose of appearing before such an authority and to disclose the name and address of each and every home worker who was engaged by such contractors as home workers and on whose account the provident fund dues were realised. The individual contractors against whom such notice is issued should appear and disclose all relevant materials for the purpose of disclosing and finding out the identity of such persons. The individual contractors against whom such notice is issued should appear and disclose all relevant materials for the purpose of disclosing and finding out the identity of such persons. Furthermore, the Provident Fund Commissioner shall also deploy some of the Inspectors to verify the particulars submitted by such contractors in respect of the home workers to find out the genuineness of such particulars furnished to the provident fund authorities. We make it clear that such course of action is necessary for the purpose of doing justice to each and every home workers who are the recipient of the benefit of the provident fund. The provident Fund Commissioner shall also see that the list furnished are correct and complete and as the home workers are illiterate and poor the Provident Fund Commissioner shall send Inspector to their respective villages or their houses for making some random check. For this purpose we also direct the appellants to compel the contractors to disclose the name and addresses of the home workers for the past periods and also as and when the moneys are paid by the company on account of the home workers as their remuneration the contractors should be directed to submit the list of such home workers with their addresses and the appellant petitioners shall then forward a statement before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner giving the names and addresses of each and every home workers and the amount of provident fund realised from their wages and the contribution of the employer for the purpose of record. Furthermore, the home workers should also be informed that the provident fund authorities are realising and keeping with them provident fund dues of each and every home workers as the home workers are poor and illiterate and are most supposed to know all these matters, it must be brought to their notice so that they may approach to the provident fund authorities for the purpose of obtaining loan and/or withdrawal of the money lying with the provident fund authorities. Accordingly the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is modified to the extent that the employees' share of contribution which could not be realised by the appellants for the period under reference should not be imposed as a liability of the employer. But the employer would be liable for the employers contribution for the aforesaid period including administration charges. Accordingly the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is modified to the extent that the employees' share of contribution which could not be realised by the appellants for the period under reference should not be imposed as a liability of the employer. But the employer would be liable for the employers contribution for the aforesaid period including administration charges. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall issue notice to each and every contractors for the purpose of disclosing the names and addresses of each home workers who were paid wages by such contractors. For the purpose of enrolling the names in the provident fund account so that the account in their names be maintained, the appellant is also directed not to make any payment on account of wages to the contractors until and unless such contractors furnish the names and addresses of each and every home workers and the amount of wages paid to such workers in detail. It is made clear that it is the primary duty of the employer to get the name of Home Workers collected and sent to the Provident Fund Deptt. for necessary action. The appellants being the employer shall immediately forward the statement furnished by the contractors giving in detail the names and addressess of such home workers and the amount of wages paid to such home workers for the purpose of verifying the amount of contribution whether paid correctly or not. If the course of action is not laid down by us is not followed in that event there may be scope for manipulation which will frustrate the very purpose of the Provident Fund Act. All arrears shall be paid within 3 months from today to the Provident Fund Authorities. 9. The judgment of the learned trial Judge is modified to the extent stated above only. The appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 10. On the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant let there be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of six weeks from date. 11. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Appeal disposed of. Asok Kumar ChakravartJy, J.: I agree.