JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Above referred four writ petitions having similar issues are being decided by following common judgment. 2. Petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 23083 of 2020 (Central Pollution Control Board); 9887 of 2021 (Pee Cee Cosma Sope Ltd.) and 29859 of 2022 (M/s Institute Of Mental Health And Hospital) are principal employers whereas petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8898 of 2022 (M/s Industrial Security Associates) is a contractor who has provided employees to above referred writ petitioners on contract. Principal employers are aggrieved by common judgment and order dated 13.11.2018 and order dated 30.01.2020 passed under Section 7-A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Act of 1952] whereby appropriate Authority under said Act has fastened liability on petitioners being principal employers as well as on contractor also. 3. The appropriate Authority in the impugned order has referred definition of employees as provided under Section 2-F of said Act of 1952 as well as paragraph 36 (duties of employer) and paragraph 36-b (duties of contractor) of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 [Scheme of 1952] and further held that since principal employers as well as contractor have failed to comply with the statutory provisions of said Act to deposit due, therefore, it was directed to principal employers as well as contractor to deposit their respective contributions. It was further held that principal employers have engaged workers through contractor for their administrative and financial convenience and any financial dispute between these parties will not absolve them from their respective statutory duties. For reference, above referred section and paragraphs are mentioned hereinafter: “Section 2 (f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of [an establishment] and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer [and includes any person: (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment. (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment. Paragraph 36 of Scheme of 1952 36. (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment. Paragraph 36 of Scheme of 1952 36. Duties of employers (1) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner, within fifteen days of the commencement of this Scheme, a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the [basic wage, retaining allowance (if any) and dearness allowance including the cash value of any food concession] paid to each of such employees: Provided that if there is no employee who is required or entitled to become a member of the Fund, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return. (2) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the close of each month a return: (a) in Form 5, of the employees qualifying to become members of the Fund for the first time during the preceding month together with the declarations in Form 2 furnished by such qualifying employees. (b) [in such form as the Commissioner may specify] of the employees leaving service of the employer during the preceding month: Provided that if there is no employee qualifying to become a member of the Fund for the first time or there is no employee leaving service of the employer during the preceding month, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return. (c) Provided further that a copy of the forms as mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) above shall be provided by the employer to concerned employees immediately after joining the service or at the time of leaving the service, as the case may be. (3) [Omitted] (4) Every employer shall maintain an inspection note book in such form as the Commissioner may specify, for an Inspector to record his observation on his visit to the establishment. (5) Every employer shall maintain such accounts in relation to the amounts contributed to the Fund by him and by his employees as the Central Board from time to time, direct and it shall be the duty of every employer to assist the Central Board in making such payments from the Fund to his employees as are sanctioned by or under the authority of the Central Board. (6) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this paragraph, the Central Board may issue such directions to employers generally as it may consider necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme and it shall be the duty of every employer to carry out such directions. ................. Paragraph 36-B of Scheme of 1952 Every contractor shall, within seven days of the close of every month, submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner.” 4. Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, Ms. Himadri Batra and Sri Shrey Singh, learned counsel for respective principal employers have submitted that there is an alternative remedy with petitioners to file review petition under Section 7-B of Act of 1952, however, since a pure question of law is involved in present case, therefore, this Court may entertain present writ petition without insisting to avail alternative remedy. They have placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 95. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed following arguments in favour of stand of petitioners being principal employer that: (i) Petitioners are just a beneficiary of services of contractor for which due consideration was paid by them. (ii) For fasten liability under the Act of 1952, legal requirement is test of relationship between employer and an employee and for that relevant factors are: (a) who appoints the workers. (b) who pays the salary/remuneration. (c) who has the authority to dismiss. (d) who can take disciplinary action. (e) whether there is continuity of service. (f) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. In this regard, they have placed reliance on P.M. Patel and Sons vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 32 : AIR 1987 SC 447 and Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407 . (iii) Contractor has provided security guard to petitioners and in absence of above factors, relationship of employer-employee does not exist i.e. the test of above referred judgment is not satisfied. 6. (iii) Contractor has provided security guard to petitioners and in absence of above factors, relationship of employer-employee does not exist i.e. the test of above referred judgment is not satisfied. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon Panther Security Service Private Limited vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 193 that security service providers are squarely covered by notification dated 17.05.1971 and, therefore, are under obligation to contribute according to Act of 1952 and Scheme of 1952. 7. Learned counsel have also placed reliance on Pradeep Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Another, 2015 LLR 726 that employer-employee relationship in respect of principal employer would not exist if the contractor engaged has a valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [Act of 1970]. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Group-IV Securitas Guarding Ltd. and Another vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Others, 2012 LLR 22 . 8. Sri Rohit Sharma holding brief of Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for petitioner-contractor [Writ (C) No. 8898 of 2022] submits that principal employer was also responsible to share contribution and since it was not paid, the contractor was not able to contribute the same. Learned counsel has not denied contents of agreements between contractor and principal employers which are on record. 9. Per contra, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Employees Provident Fund Organization [EPFO] has supported the impugned orders that there is an effective and efficacious alternative remedy available with petitioners. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon P.M. Patel (supra) that workers employed through contractor also are employee under Section 2-f of Act of 1952 as well as right to reject workers determine as to who is the employer and for that he has referred clauses 12, 15, 18, 21, 45, 60 and 62 of agreement executed between principal employer and contractor (service provider). 11. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Goel Textile Industries vs. Union of India, Laws, (1990) 12 (All) 22 that employees hired through contractor to be treated as employee under Section 12 of the Act of 1952. He also placed reliance on Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and Another, AIR 2002 H.P. 70 . 11. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Goel Textile Industries vs. Union of India, Laws, (1990) 12 (All) 22 that employees hired through contractor to be treated as employee under Section 12 of the Act of 1952. He also placed reliance on Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and Another, AIR 2002 H.P. 70 . The Act does not create discrimination among employee employed directly or through agency or a contract for implementation of provisions of Act of 1952 and Scheme of 1952. 12. Learned counsel has also submitted that Act of 1952 is a special piece of legislation established for benefits of their own cause. Learned counsel has further relied upon judgments of Enfield India Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1999 (6) Laws (Mad.) 27, Rupa and Co. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, 2016 (8) Laws (Cal.) 80 and M/s Silk Contract Services vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2019 (9) Laws (Mad.) 462 that a contract between principal employers have binding effect so far statutory authorities are concerned. If at all such arrangement is in existence, the principal employers have to pay the competent authority as the same are statutory dues and thereafter it may be recovered from other party as per contract. 13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record. 14. In M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has taken note of State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, 1958 SCR 595 , Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, 2021 SCC Online SC 884 and held that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed question of facts but only question of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. Learned counsel for respondents were not able to deny that a question of law is involved in present case, therefore, present writ petition is considered on merit, without insisting to avail alternative remedy. 15. The issue before this Court for consideration is that whether principal employers are liable to deposit their share under the Act of 1952 even for personnel provided by contractor on agreement? 15. The issue before this Court for consideration is that whether principal employers are liable to deposit their share under the Act of 1952 even for personnel provided by contractor on agreement? In the present case, undisputedly, there were separate agreements between the principal employers and contractor for providing requisite number of manpower of guards. According to terms of agreement, the contractor has to provide manpower for guards and for that principal employer shall have to pay settled amount and for all purpose of employment, terms and conditions of service, payment and attendance, disciplinary matters in respect of personnel provided by contractor shall remained fully under the administrative and financial control of contractor and further that contractor shall make payment of wages, etc. to person so deployed with principal employer. The contractor shall comply with labour regulations in regard to payment of wages, wage period deduction from wages, recovery of wages not paid and deductions unauthorized made, maintenance of wages book, wages slip, publication of scale of wages and terms of employment, inspection and submissions of periodical returns. 16. I have carefully perused different contracts annexed along with writ petitions which are almost similarly worded that it was the duty of contractor to supply guards to principal employers as well as the contractor has duty to comply with all conditions of relevant Act and Scheme. Principal employers have power to remove guards in case of any indiscipline or subordination or to ask the contractor not to send said worker or guard. Therefore, there were limited powers with principal employers to remove which may satisfy test of employer-employee relationship to some extent, however, it cannot be denied that manpower was provided by contractor who, as per the agreement, is under obligation to deposit share according to Act of 1952. 17. In this regard, it would be relevant to consider provisions of Scheme and as referred above. Paragraph 36 and 36-B provides duties of employers as well as of contractor. The Scheme does not provide any distinction between principal employers and contractor as well as employee includes personnel employed through contractor also. 18. Clause 30 (Payment of Contribution) of Scheme of 1952 provides the employer shall, in first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself and also; on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such person. 18. Clause 30 (Payment of Contribution) of Scheme of 1952 provides the employer shall, in first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself and also; on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such person. Contractor liability further provides to recover the contribution payable by such employee employed by or through contactor and shall pay to the principal employer. Contractor who are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to be treated as independent employer [See: The Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. EPFO and Another, 2011 SCC Online Mad. 1350 and M/s. Brakes India Ltd. (Brakes Division), Sholinghur vs. EPFO, 2015 SCC Online Mad. 2994]. 19. It is not in dispute that Contractor (M/s Industrial Security Associates) is an establishment covered under the Act of 1952 vide Establishment Independent Code. According to M/s Panther Security (supra), contractor in present case is squarely covered by the CSR No. 805 dated 17.05.1971 i.e. Act of 1952 is applicable to it. 20. Outcome of above discussion is as follows: 1. Provisions of Act of 1952 equally applies to employee employed directly or through agency or through a contractor. 2. Scheme of 1952 provides a procedure for payment of contribution also and at first instance principal employer has responsibility to deposit which can be recovered from contractor. 3. However, since in present case, contractor is a registered establishment under Act of 1952, and in view of M/s Panther Security (supra), he is under obligation to contribute and contractor cannot take a plea that principal employer has not deposited. 4. In regard to test of employer-employee, the conditions of agreement become important and as discussed above, for all purpose of employment, terms and conditions of service, payment, attendance, disciplinary matter, the personnel provided by the contractor remained fully under administrative and financial control and contractor only. Contractor has to deposit/pay tax as applicable also. According to agreement, deposit of contribution under Act of 1952 is also on contractor. These conditions are more than sufficient for employer-employee relationship of a contractor-personnel provided under contract. Therefore, the limited power of principal employer to remove guards in case indiscipline will not create relationship of employer-employee and it would not establish such relationship. Conclusion: 21. According to agreement, deposit of contribution under Act of 1952 is also on contractor. These conditions are more than sufficient for employer-employee relationship of a contractor-personnel provided under contract. Therefore, the limited power of principal employer to remove guards in case indiscipline will not create relationship of employer-employee and it would not establish such relationship. Conclusion: 21. The guards provided by the contractor to principal employer will not create an employer-employee relationship between principal employer and guards rather they shall be employees of contractor and contractor shall remain responsible to deposit contribution under the Act of 1952. Accordingly, liability fasten against petitioners [Writ (C) No. 23083 of 2020, Writ (C) No. 9887 of 2021 and Writ (C) No. 29859 of 2022] by impugned orders, are set aside and entire liability shall be on petitioner/contractor [Writ (C) No. 8898 of 2022]. 22. Accordingly, impugned orders are modified. Bank account, if freezed, be defreezed. Recovery proceeding, if initiated against principal employers, shall stand quashed and petition stands disposed of.