Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 876
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner EPFO, Bareilly – Appellant
Versus
M/s U.P. State Warehousing Corp. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6295 of 2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.3458 of 2015)
Decided on : 14-08-2019
For the Petitioner(s):Keshav Mohan, Rishi K.Awasthi, Prashant Kumar, Smarhar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):R.R. Rajesh, Satya Ranjan Swain, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Definition of “employee” under ID Act and one defined under PF Act in question are not similar.
Headnote:
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 7A – Provident fund contribution – Arrears – Show-cause notice – Reversal of orders of adjudicating authority and appellate authority by High Court – High Court failed to examine the issue keeping in view definition of employee" as defined under Section 2(f) of Act – High Court should have seen that proceedings in question have arisen out of the Act in question and issue was required to be decided in light of relevant provisions of the Act in question but not in light of finding recorded in proceedings arising under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Definition of “employee” under ID Act and one defined under the Act in question are not similar – Even their objects are also not identical – Issue was required to be decided independently and de hors proceedings decided under ID Act – Impugned order set aside and case (writ petition) remanded to High Court (writ court) for deciding Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view definition of "employee'' as defined under Section 2(f) of Act and then decide as to whether proceedings under Section 7A of Act are legal and proper or not. (Paras 18 to 24)
Facts of the Case:
Provident Fund. question arose as to whether the workers (total 159 at the relevant time), who were engaged in work of loading and unloading in the Godowns, are entitled to claim the benefit of the Act and, if so, whether the Corporation is liable to pay statutory contribution in relation to such workers in accordance with the provisions of the Act so as to entitle the workers to claim benefits of the Act. Question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation and thereby was also justified in setting aside the orders of the adjudicating authority and appellate authority.
Findings of Court:
High Court should have seen that the proceedings in question have arisen out of the Act in question and, therefore, the issue was required to be decided in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act in question but not in the light of the finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 49599 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and quashed the awards dated 03.08.2010 and 02.12.2002 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Officer respectively.
3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, a few facts need mention infra.
4. The appellant herein is respondent No. 1 whereas respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein is respondent No. 2 in the writ petition before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.
5. The appellant is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees’ Provident Fund under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Respondent No.1 is the statutory Corporation known as U.P. State Warehousing Corporation for the State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) and respondent No. 2 is the Union of workers.
6. The Corporation is inter alia engaged in the business of stocking the grains and other commodities in its Godown. The work of loading and unloading of the commodities in the Godown is done by the workers on regular basis. The business of Corporation is governed by the provisions of Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (for short called, “The Act 1962”).
7. It is the case of the Corporation that the stocking, loading and unloading of the commodities in its Godowns is done through Contractor, who, in turn, employs the workers for doing the work of loading and unloading for the Corporation in their Godowns. These workers have formed their Union called U.P. Rajya Bhandar Nigam Asthayi Handling Mazdoor Union respondent No. 2 herein.
8. The question arose as to whether the workers (total 159 at the relevant time), who were engaged in the work of loading and unloading in the Godowns, are entitled to claim the benefit of the Act and, if so, whether the Corporation is liable to pay the statutory contribution in relation to such workers in accordance with the provisions of the Act so as to entitle the workers to claim the benefits of the Act.
9. The appellant with a view to decide this question accordingly issued notice to the Corporation under Section 7A of the Act and called upon them to pay the arrears due towards provident fund contribution of these workers (159) in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
10. The Corporation contested the show cause notice inter alia on the ground that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and these workers, the Corporation was not liable to pay any contribution of these workers under the Act.
11. The Corporation also pointed out that the question as to whether these workers were the employees of the Corporation or not was already gone into between the parties before the Labour Court in adjudication Case Nos. 89/2006 and 3/2009 and the same was decided by the Labour Court in workers’ favour but later the award of the Labour Court was set aside by the High Court by order dated 15.05.2013 in W.P. No 72314 of 2010. It is on this basis, the Corporation contended that in the light of this finding having been recorded by the High Court in their favour, the present proceedings initiated under Section 7A of the Act against the Corporation are wholly devoid of any merit and hence the proceedings be withdrawn.
12. By assessment order dated 02.12.2002, the adjudicating authority did not accept the contentions raised by the Corporation and held that the Corporation was liable to pay the contribution of these workers in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appellate authority constituted under the Act upheld the order, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition by the Co
