merely an excuse to evade its liability towards the workers‟ PF dues. It has been further contended that the details provided by workers union mostly tallies with the Returns submitted by the petitioner for the year 1986-1987 and thus, the identification of workers is available and has been rightly done. 72. During the proceedings before it, the workers union had submitted that wages were equally distributed amongst them and Returns submitted by the petitioner before it for the year 1986-1987 was also examined, wherein, it was observed that on an earlier occasion also equal amount of contribution has been credited to each worker. The dues decided can also be credited to individual worker‟s account on the same pattern. Therefore, taking the same into consideration, the liability of the petitioner was determined for the period of December, 1980 to January, 1988 and May, 1990 to April, 1991 and the same has been rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. 73. The respondent – workers Union was impleaded as a party to the instant case and it has been submitted on its behalf that the petitioner had maintained all the relevant record with it such as attendance and the wage register. Furthermore, it has been contended that the respondent RPFC took all the steps to ensure the presence of the contractors for production of the relevant records, however, none of the contractors appeared despite issuance of proclamation in various newspapers. Even after taking note of the same, the petitioner failed to produce the records for the identification of the workers in an attempt to evade its responsibility towards the PF dues of poor workers. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
