Judgment : 1. By order dated 19-09-2001, the petitioner was protected. By order dated 29-11-2001, the petition was admitted and the interim relief granted to the petitioner was continued. 2. I have heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Mobin Shaikh for the petitioner and Shri K.B. Choudhari, for the Provident Fund Authorities respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. By an order dated 19-11-1997, the respondent No. 1/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (R.P.F.C.), Mumbai, made the petitioner/ society amenable to the jurisdiction of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (E.P.F.M.P. Act) 1952. By the said order the Provident Fund Act was made applicable to the petitioner/society and all its establishments/ Branches/ Departments with effect from 01-08-1982. It is thereafter that the recovery proceedings in accordance with the Act were initiated against the petitioner/society. I do not find it necessary to go into the entire facts set out in this petition, in view of the order that I propose to pass. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19-11-1997 applying the E.P.F.M.P. Act with retrospective effect. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by Section 7-A enquiry, by which the employers and employees contribution is sought to be recovered from 01-08-1982 despite the fact that the workers alleged to have been employed by the petitioner were no longer available and as such were no longer the beneficiaries. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of the E.P.F., Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, to the extent of its refusal to condone the delay of 120 days in filing of an appeal under Section 7(I) of the E.P.F.M.P. Act. 5. Shri Dhorde, learned Sr. Advocate, drawn my attention to para No. 17 of the petition memo to indicate that an amount of Rs. 7,39,929/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine only) were assessed by the respondent No.1/R.P.F.C. to be outstanding PF contributions. He has also drawn my attention to the observation of the E.P.F., Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in para No. 3 which reads thus:- “Under the procedure Rule an aggrieved person may file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. A further delay of 60 days can be condoned by this Tribunal. That way, an appeal should be filed not beyond 120 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. A further delay of 60 days can be condoned by this Tribunal. That way, an appeal should be filed not beyond 120 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. In this case the appeal has been filed after years. Thus, this Tribunal is helpless to entertain this appeal being heavily barred by time. It is feeling helpless to set aside such an illegal computation of PF contribution. For computing PF contribution, it is obligatory on the 7A authorities that they should waive employees share of PF contribution for the pre-discovery period as per general Notification issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour. In relation to educational institutions also the CBT, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, has issued direction that employees share of contributions from their wages for the period from 01-03-1982 to 31-01-1988 should not be recovered if the employer has not deducted it from the wages of the employees and employer and employees do not volunteer to pay the same. As a fact in the present case many of the employees from the year 1982 to 1997 have left the job. According to the appellant they are traceless. The appellant has also notified in newspapers to such employees for appearing and giving their names and address as directed by the APFC subsequent to passing of the impugned order. But despite all efforts, only 8 persons have turned up. I am unable to see how any amount which cannot be related to an employee can be said to be PF contribution as defined in the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and if it cannot be a PF contribution how the PF authorities can recover it and penalise the employer for delayed payment etc.” 6. I do not see any reasons set out in the impugned order to justify the refusal by the Tribunal to condone the delay. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has concluded that the impugned order amounts to an illegal computation of PF contributions. The Tribunal also noted that it was obligatory on the 7-A authorities to abide by the Notification issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, whereby it was obligatory on the 7-A authorities to waive the employees share of PF contribution for the pre-discovery period. The Tribunal also noted that it was obligatory on the 7-A authorities to abide by the Notification issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, whereby it was obligatory on the 7-A authorities to waive the employees share of PF contribution for the pre-discovery period. It has also noted that in relation to educational institutions, the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Labour has issued directions that the employees share of contributions from their wages for the period from 01-03-1982 to 31-01-1988 should not recovered if the employer has not deducted it from the wages of the employees. 7. In this backdrop, Shri Dhorde, learned Sr. Advocate submits that approximately an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) have already been deposited with the PF authorities. According to him, if the employees contribution for the pre-discovery period i.e. 01-08-1982 till 19-11-1997 is to be waived as per the Notification referred above, the petitioner would be liable to pay an amount equal to 50% of the assessed amount. 8. Shri K.B. Choudhari, learned Advocate for the respondents has strenuously contended that despite the workers who are the ultimate beneficiaries may not be traceable, the outstanding dues are to be deposited since the said money ought to lie with the PF authorities. He further states that in the event any worker in future approaches the authority making a claim to the said contribution, the PF authorities would be in a position to pay/apportion the amount to the said claimants. 9. Shri Dhorde, counters the said contention by stating that a public notice was published in a news paper under the directions of the PF authorities with the intention of tracing out past employees. The said advertisement is at page No. 130 of the petition paper book. He states that only eight employees had come forward in response to the said notice which was dated 13-11-1999. 10. This Court has taken a view in the matter of SandeepDwellers Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, reported at 2007 (3) B.C.R. 898. It has been concluded that if those temporary employees with regard to whom PF contributions have not been deposited by the employer, are not traceable and are not available to take the benefit of such contributions, the PF authorities do not have a right over the outstanding dues. 11. It has been concluded that if those temporary employees with regard to whom PF contributions have not been deposited by the employer, are not traceable and are not available to take the benefit of such contributions, the PF authorities do not have a right over the outstanding dues. 11. In the case of Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court (B.P. Dharmadhikari-J.) has held that:- “Question is whether a worker whether on site or otherwise, of petitioner employed directly or indirectly briefly can be treated as part of establishment of petitioner or can he be treated as part of establishment of a contractor who deputes him to said site and if he cannot be associated with either petitioner or such contractor, whether he is to be ignored even though he has performed work of regular nature of establishment of petitioner. This can be found out by applying "control test" or "integration test" as has been laid down by Hon Apex Court in judgments in case of Nilgiri Cooperative Society (supra) or in case of Ramsingh (supra). It cannot be ruled out that there may be contractors undertaking only specialized jobs like electrification, plumbing, interior decoration etc. and these contractors may simultaneously work on different sites of more than one establishment like that of present Petitioners and depute their skilled labour to such sites & rotate them depending upon need. Here, the tests mentioned by Hon Apex Court above will have to be invoked to find out whether there is employer-employee relationship between petitioner and such worker/employee. But when such employee who frequently changes his employer/contractor and therefore, either himself does not accept an obligation or on whom there is no obligation to report for duty every day, if he can be identified and reached, benefit of coverage can be extended to him. Considering human tendency, it is not possible to presume that any worker would generally not like stability or continuity of work. But still if there exist such worker, in absence of proper scheme under P.F. Act to keep his track, it is difficult to establish his identity and to deliver the benefit to him .” 12. It is concluded by this Court that “Identification of employee is therefore held to be must before effecting such recovery. But still if there exist such worker, in absence of proper scheme under P.F. Act to keep his track, it is difficult to establish his identity and to deliver the benefit to him .” 12. It is concluded by this Court that “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.” 13. In light of the above, I deem it proper and ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is directed to deposit only the employers share from 01-08-1982 to 19-11-1997. The assessed amount is stated to be Rs. 7,40,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Fourty Thousand only). In light of the submissions of the respective sides, there is no dispute that this is the maximum amount outstanding. 50% of the amount can be said to be the employers contribution. As such, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 3,70,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) out of which they have already paid an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only). 14. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with the following directions:- A] The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with the respondent No. 3 at Nashik within a period of six weeks from today. B] In view of the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) the employers contribution to the extent of 3,70,000/-(Rs. Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) is deemed to be satisfied. C] The Issue as regards the PF contributions for the period from 01-08-1982 till 19-11-1997 shall be treated as closed. D] Impugned orders accordingly stands modified. 15. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.