G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) THE Indian horticultural research institute has its units at chittahalli and gonikoppal in kodagu district. They are called research stations, but, there are fruit growing trees therein, which according to the said institution, are for the purpose of research. The said two units are the writ petitioners herein. By the orders at annexures-b and c impugned herein, not only that the respondent sought to cover the said two units at chittahalli and gonikoppal under the Provisions of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('act' for short), but, also to direct making contribution of specific sum as specified in the said two annexures.

( 2 ) THE contention of the respondent is that, though the institution as such, viz. , Indian institute of horticultural research, came to be covered under the act by virtue of notification issued under Section l (3) (b) of the act with effect from 6-3-1982 as per item 48 of appendix-i to the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952 ('scheme' for short), the places at which fruit bearing trees were being grown by the institute concerned at chittahalli and gonikoppal, though for research purpose, the purpose not being relevant for the Provisions of the Act, were however 'fruits orchards' within the meaning of entry 36 of the said appendix-i to the scheme which came to be entered with effect from 31-12-1974, and that, therefore, the said two stations chittahalli and gonikoppal, had to be necessarily covered with effect from 31-12-1974.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, however, urged that the institution as suchis covered from 6-3-1982 and that, what are being there at chittahalli and gonikoppal are research stations and not fruit orchards within the meaning of the notification mentioned at entry 36 of appendix-i of the scheme. The further contention of the petitioners is that the respondent has sought to cover the casual employees also, which is not correct.

( 4 ) THE petitioners, thus, urged that the coverage in respect of the two stations with effect from 31-12-1974, the coverage of casual employees, and the determination of a consolidated sum as being without reference to the details of the employees, the eligibility of the said employees and the dates from which each of the said employee is to be covered, being absent in annexures-b and c, the same need to be quashed.

( 5 ) FIRSTLY, with regard to the nature of the establishments at chittahalli and gonikoppal. They are no doubt research stations of the Indian institute of horticultural research. But, what the said research centre maintains there are fruit growing trees as also other trees, though for the research purpose. The act speaks of an establishment, and not the purpose for which the establishment is being run. The reference is to the number of employees working in such establishment where it is an establishment covered by a notification of the central government under Section l (3) (b) of the act. By a notification dated 27-11-1974, under Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act, fruit orchards were brought within the purview of the act with effect from 31-12-1974. Section l (3) (b) of the act inter alia provides that act would apply to any establishment employing 20 or more persons as specified by the central government in a notification issued in that regard. By the notification dated 27-11-1974, the two establishments at chittahalli and gonikoppal would get covered with effect from 31-12-1974 if they could be called 'fruit orchards' and if 20 or more persons are employed therein. What is 'fruit orchard' is not defined in the act or in the scheme. According to the chambers dictionary, 'orchard' means an enclosed garden of fruit trees. What the institution maintains at chittahalli and gonikoppal are not open to public. They are obviously enclosed areas wherein fruit growing trees are grown and maintained. There could be no doubt, therefore, that they are fruit orchards. If they are fruit orchards, they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document