Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the private limited company. They have come forward with the present writ petition to challenge the notice of demand dated 7.12.2004 issued by the third respondent Recovery Officer. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioner as found in their representation dated 5.4.2003 that in respect of three employees viz., C.Subramaniam, A.Ranganathan and G.Sivakumar, they detained both shares of contributions payable to all the three employees for the years 1998-99 to 2000-2001. In that representation, they had stated that all the three employees indulged in misbehaviour and mismanagement and they requested permission to detain their contributions. 3. Notwithstanding the same, by the impugned notice of demand, the third respondent demanded payment of Rs.2,27,103/- + Rs.86,095/-, failing which, action will be taken for recover the amount in terms of Section 8-C (2) of EPF and MP Act by attaching the properties of the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner in the affidavit was that they had about 256 workers on its rolls and the company was closed due to severe recession in the Textile industry. During the said period, the said three employees due to their misbehaviour and mismanagement, were placed under enquiry and the enquiry could not be completed and therefore, they sought permission to detain the contributions of those employees. Even without considering their representation, the impugned notices came to be issued by the third respondent Recovery Officer. 5. The writ petition was admitted on 4.7.2005. Pending the writ petition, this court directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount demanded as condition precedent for grant of interim stay. It is admitted that the said order has been complied with. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner that either non-consideration of their representation or not issuing notice of demand under Section 7A of the Act, is totally misconceived under Section 30 of Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. It shall be the responsibility of the employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges and recover the contributions from the salary of the employees. It shall be the responsibility of the employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges and recover the contributions from the salary of the employees. If for some reasons, those three employees were placed under suspension, the employer can always recover the contributions of those employees from their payment of subsistence allowance and paid to the department. The Supreme Court vide its judgement in Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. Popular Automobiles reported in 1998 (1) LIC 121 in respect of ESI Act has held that deduction must be made towards ESI Contribution even for the subsistence allowance payable to the workmen. 7. Therefore, there was no excuse on the part of the petitioner to retain the contributions of those employees and it will be contrary to the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. The Scheme does not authorise any retention of the amounts payable to the department under any circumstances. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.