M. P. CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent here in made an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act to hold that the applicant therein was not liable to pay the contribution on the amounts paid to the contractors and to hold that the applicant is not liable to pay the sum of rs. 24,079. 00 to the respondent. ( 2 ) THE appellant here in filed objections on that application. After hearing both the parties, the learned esi court, hubli, in esi application No. 17 of 1991 allowed the application and the matter was remanded back to the esi corporation with a direction to implead the contractors named by the applicant and then to decide the matter vide its order dated 31-1-1998. Being aggrieved by that Order, the esi corporation/respondent has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the finding of the insurance court that the contractor was a necessary party to the proceedings under Section 45 (a) of the act calls for interference. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of sections 40 and 41 of the Act, it is not necessary to implead the contractor who is only the immediate employer in the proceedings before the corporation. ( 5 ) IN view of this argument, it is necessary to refer to sections 40 and 41 of the esi act. Section 40 deals with liability of the principal employer to pay contributions in the first instance and Section 41 pertains to recovery of contribution from immediate employer. From a bare reading of-these two sections it is abundantly clear that the employer shall pay the contribution in the first instance to the corporation, even in the case of an employee directly employed by the contractor. It is also provided that if any amount is paid by the principal employer, the same shall be recovered as provided under Section 41 of the act from the immediate employer. When the act itself has provided for the principal employer to make payments in respect of the payments to be made to the contractors, the immediate employer need not be impleaded as the party. The court below has relied on a decision of the Madras high court which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court. When the act itself has provided for the principal employer to make payments in respect of the payments to be made to the contractors, the immediate employer need not be impleaded as the party. The court below has relied on a decision of the Madras high court which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court. ( 6 ) IN food corporation of India v provident fund commissioner and another, it is held that it is no doubt true that the employer and contractors are both liable to maintain registers in respect of the workers employed. But the corporation seems to have some problems in collating the lists of all workers engaged in depots scattered at different places. It has requested the commissioner to summon the contractors to produce the respective lists of workers engaged by them. The commissioner did not summon the contractors nor the lists maintained by them. He has stated that the corporation has failed to produce the evidence. In that circumstance, their lordships have held that the question is whether the commissioner who is the statutory authority has exercised powers vested in him to collect the relevant evidence-before determining the amount payable under the said act. After considering Section 7-a of the employees' Provident Fund Act it is held that it will be seen from the above Provisions that the commissioner is authorised to enforce attendance in person and also to examine any person on oath. He has the power requiring the discovery and production of documents. This power was given to the commissioner to decide not abstract questions of law, but only to determine actual concrete differences in payment of contribution and other dues by identifying the workmen. The commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. That is the legal duty of the commissioner. It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the commissioner to dispose of the matter afresh and in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THIS judgment as stated above is pertaining to the provident fund act. There is no question of employer and immediate employer to deposit the money. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the commissioner to dispose of the matter afresh and in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THIS judgment as stated above is pertaining to the provident fund act. There is no question of employer and immediate employer to deposit the money. It is clear that such Provisions as are found in sections 40 and 41 of the act are not available in the employees' provident fund act. But, the Madras High Court has followed the said judgment in Madras gymkhana club, Madras v employees' state insurance corporation, Madras and it is held that in view of the decision of the supreme court the respondent ought to have impleaded the contractors as parties as requested by the petitioner in order to adjudicate the matter in controversy. though the learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the impugned order is sustainable but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, this court finds that there is justification on the part of the petitioner seeking to implead the contractors as necessary parties for adjudication of the matter in controversy. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the respondent-corporation is di rected to implead the contractors as necessary parties for adjudication of the matter in controversy and to proceed further. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. ( 8 ) FURTHER, it appears sections 40 and 41 of the act making the principal employer to pay the contribution which is liable to be paid by the immediate employer and empowering the principal employer to collect from the immediate employer is with a view to avoiding unnecessary delay and also establishing the liability of the immediate employer. in view of the fact that there is a specific provision, it is not necessary for the respondent to make the immediate employer a party in the proceedings before passing the order under Section 45-a. These provisions are incorporated to avoid the corporation to go in search of the immediate employer to recover the amount. On the other hand, the principal employer whose concern is covered under the act would be available to recover the amount. On the other hand, the principal employer whose concern is covered under the act would be available to recover the amount. There is a privity of contract between the principal employer and the immediate employer created by the statute wherein the principal employer is mandated to pay the contributions in respect of the employees of the immediate employer working for the principal employer. Therefore, the question of impleading the contractor does not arise as he not a proper or necessary party to the proceedings as the relief is already provided to the principal employer under the act itself as indicated above. ( 9 ) AS indicated above, their lordships have decided the case under Section 7-a of the Provident Fund Act. For the foregoing reasons, i respectfully disagree with the finding of the learned Madras High Court in regard to impleading the contractors as party before the esi court for the proceedings under Section 45-a of the act. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result there fore, this appeal is allowed and the matter now stands remitted to the esi court with a direction to restore the case esi application No. 17 of 1991 and to proceed with the case in accordance with law in the. light of the observations made above. --- *** --- .