JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the WP(C) No.66/2009 and WP(C) No.2214/2010. Mr. M.R. Das, the learned Counsel appears in the WP(C) NO.3805/2008. For the respondents Mr. D. Dey and Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appears for the Regional Provident Fund (PF) Commissioner and others. 2. These three cases arise out of the proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the PF Act”). In the WP(C) No.66/2009, the BSNL authorities challenge the order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-9) of the Asstt. P.F. Commissioner (ENF), whereby the assessment of the P.F. dues was done without identifying the beneficiaries under the contractors, but by specifying the names of 22 contractors in the assessment order. Here the P.F. dues payable under Section 7A and penal interest calculated under Section 7Q of the P.F. Act were assessed and the BSNL authorities were directed to deposit the assessed amount with the P.F. authorities. In the WP(C) No.2214/2010, the petitioner challenge the direction given to the Silchar Branch Manager of the Indian Bank on 30.3.2010 (Annexure-3) by the Recovery Officer, whereby the bank was directed to pay the Certificate amount to the Regional P.F. Commissioner. In the WP(C) No.3805/2008, similar direction of the Asstt. P.F. Commissioner issued on 1.8.2008 (Annexure-VIII) to the Tezpur Branch Manager of the Indian Bank to remit the statutory dues under the P.F. Act form the bank account of the assessed establishment, is challenged. 3. At the very outset it is relevant to note that assessment in each of these cases relate to the P.F. benefits payable for the employees under the contractors and in all the cases, the payable amount was assessed by the P.F. Commissioner without identifying the beneficiaries. 4.1 Mr. B. Pathak, the learned Counsel submits that the BSNL is not opposing the disbursal of the P.F. benefits to the employees engaged by the contractors but the primary objection to the impugned process is on account of the fact that beneficiaries have not been identified and therefore deposit of the assessed dues with the P.F. authorities would hardly achieve the objective of the beneficial legislation. 4.2 It appears that several petty contractors, who were not registered under the P.F. Act, were engaged for execution of works under the BSNL and requisite payment was made for the works executed by those contractors. But the BSNL authorities had no records of the employees deployed by the contractors and therefore it is contended that the requisite information for identifying the beneficiaries should be collected from the contractors and without such identification, the assessment under the P.F. Act would be unjustified. 5. In Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner reported in (1990) 1 SCC 68 , the Supreme Court after analysing the powers conferred on the Commissioner under Section 7A of the P.F. Act has held that the authority is empowered to determine the precise payable amount by conducting an effective enquiry and he is empowered to collect all evidence to identify the workmen to whom the P.F. dues is to be disbursed. According to the petitioners in those cases the authorities failed to secure the names of the employees from the contractors and therefore it is contended that realization of the assessed amount from the BSNL will hardly meet the objective of the P.F. Act. 6. For those establishments where employees are engaged sporadically and the employment is of migratory character, lump sum assessment is provided under Clause-8 of the Government guideline issued on 30.11.2012, by the Ministry of Labour and Employment to all authorities under the P.F. Act. Under Sub-Clause (c) of Clause 8, assessment is barred without identifying the individual member in whose account, the fund is to be credited. 7. To ensure that the benefits under the P.F. Act reaches the targeted beneficiaries, the BSNL authorities had incorporated a specific eligibility clause in their earlier tenders whereby, the contractors were required to furnish their registration numbers under the P.F. Act. But the aggrieved contractors challenged the insertion of such clause in the tender notice by contending that this will operate prejudicially to the small time contractors who do not employ 20 or more persons in their establishments. But the aggrieved contractors challenged the insertion of such clause in the tender notice by contending that this will operate prejudicially to the small time contractors who do not employ 20 or more persons in their establishments. Accepting this projection from the contractors’ side, this Court in the WP(C) No.2159/2006 (Pulak Bhattacharjee & others vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others) had held that the right of the contractors to participate in the tender process can’t be curtailed under the P.F. Act and because of this judgment, several petty contractors without being registered under the P.F. Act, were able to execute contracts for the BSNL. 8. In the present case, the authorities under the P.F. Act have failed to exercise their statutory powers to collect the names of the employees (under the contractors) to whom the P.F. dues are to be remitted and even without this vital information, the payable amount under the P.F. Act was determined. This was not the correct approach as was held by the Apex Court in the Food Corporation of India (Supra). 9. That apart, assessment without identifying the individual member in whose account the P.F. dues is to be credited is prohibited, by the Ministry’s Circular dated 30.11.2012. Of course it can’t also be ignored that this circular was issued only after the assessment in the present cases were made under the P.F. Act. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment of the P.F. dues on account of the employees under the contractors, was not made through due process and accordingly the impugned decisions of the P.F. authorities are held to be unsustainable in law. Thus the cases are remanded back for fresh adjudication by the competent authority under the P.F. Act, who should make re-assessment after identifying the names of the beneficiaries. The requisite information must be collected from the concerned contractors as the names of the employees are not available with the BSNL authorities. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above direction, these petitions are disposed of without any order on cost.