The definition of 'employee' under the EPF Act includes contract workers, and dues must be determined based on identified beneficiaries.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Assailing the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.28392 of 2010, the petitioner therein, preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

2. Through the order impugned, the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the orders dated 25.07.2010 passed by Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. ATA No.545 (1) of 2024, was dismissed.

3. By orders dated 25.07.2010, the appellate Tribunal confirmed the orders passed by respondent no.2-The Regional provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the EPF contributions due from the petitioner establishment was determined at Rs.8,09,558.12 ps.

4. The facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are that

(a) the appellant/ writ petitioner is a factory engaged in manufacture of cement with work force of more than 100 employees and hence it was covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (For short, ‘the EPF Act’). The same was declared as sick industry and a reference was made to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, ‘SICA’) and even after such reference, the company has been paying contributions as demanded by respondent no.2 from time to time.

(b) The respondent no.2 passed an order under Section 7(A) of the EPF Act and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18280 of 2003 contending that the amount determined includes the contributions in respect of persons, who are not working in the company and further the evidence placed by petitioner was not considered. The said writ petition was disposed of, setting aside the order passed under section 7(A) and remitting back the matter to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration.

(c) Pursuantly, respondent no.2 appointed a commission and conducted detailed enquiry and passed orders dated 11.06.2004 determining the amount at Rs.8,09,558.15 ps. for the period from April, 1999 to March, 2003. The said order was challenged by petitioner by filing writ petition No.10165 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 22.06.2024 relegating the petitioner to avail alternate remedy of preferring statutory appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide orders impugned in the writ petition.

(b) The respondent-Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) resisted the relief claimed by the petitioner by filing counter- affidavit contending that pursuant to the complaint received from employees union stating that the petitioner had failed to enroll certain employees as members for the benefit of provident fund, an enquiry under section 7A was initiated and order dated 11.06.2004 was passed, which was challenged in appeal and the appeal was dismissed through the impugned orders. The word ‘employee’ defined under section 2(f) of the Act does not distinguish regular, contract, casual etc.and thus, any person employed in connection with the work of the petitioner has to be enrolled as member of provident fund. The writ petition lacks merits and deserves dismissal in limini.

(c) The learned single Judge upon perusing the material available on record and upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition.

(d) Assailing the said dismissal orders, this writ appeal has been preferred.

5. Heard Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for Employees’ Provident Fund Organization.

6. Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and grounds of appeal would contend that the learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition, upon erroneous view that definition ‘employee’ includes contract employees engaged through the contr