The question involved in these two writ petitions is whether the 'home workers rolling the beedis cut of the raw materials of the petitioner received from the Commission Agents/Contractors are "'employees" of the petitioner within the meaning of the “Employees" of the provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. In C.W.J.C. No, 1114 of 1990 the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ quashing the order dated 18.12.89 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bihar Patna, (hereinafter referred to as 'R.P.F.C.) as contained in Memo No. BR/7A – Cell/1365/88/3445 dated 15.1.90 served on the petitioners on 20.1.90, whereby the R.P. F.C. had directed the petitioner to pay within 15 days a Sum of Rs. 66,84,920.50, being employer and employees' contributions for the period July, 1977 to August 1986, being Annexure - 1 to the petition. In C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 1990, the same petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ quashing the same order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the same R.P.F.C. directing the petitioner to pay within 15 days a sum of Rs. 28,72,383.85 being employer and employees contributions for the period September, 1986, to February, 1988. After the two writ petitions were filed, there have been some subsequent changes in the position including Supreme Court proceedings which I shall narrate later and which are also now the subject matter of the present hearing. These two writ petitions were heard together.

3. The facts or both the writ petitions are all common except regarding the period and the amount involved, The facts sought to be made out by the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of Bidis, Since the Bidi Industry was brought within the scope or the Act with effect from 31.5.1977, there have been various proceedings wherein it has been contended by the petitioner that the 'home workers are not its employees within the meaning of the Act, Ever since the Bidi Industry came within the scope of the Act, the petitioner never deposited any, money or taken any step under the said Act in compliance thereof, inasmuch, according to the petitioner, no home worker was engaged by it either directly or through any contractor, By a show cause notice dated 24.11.1987, the petitioner was directed to treat the borne workers employed by the Commission Agent as the home workers of the petitioner, In reply the~ petitioner contended inter alia as follows The relationship between the petitioner and the suppliers contractors/commission agents was that of principal to principal and not that of principal employer and contractor as understood under the law. It was contended that the suppliers/contractors/commission agents were themselves the principal employers. They do not engage workers on behalf of the petitioner. The Workers engaged by them do not come to the petitioner either for collection of Bidi leaves, tobacco or thread or for depositing the rolled Bidis. There was no right of rejection by the petitioner. Accordingly, the test of control/supervision envisaged rejection of damaged bidis do not show that the workers engaged by the suppliers/Contractors/commission agents the employers of the petitioner and thus covered under the said Act. Another notice under section 7-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 6.4.1988. On 12.4.1988 an order dated 11-3-1988 was issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act and asking the petitioner to comply with the Rules in respect of all the eligible employees including employees employed by or through contractors. In reply to above, by a letter dated 27.4.1988 the petitioner asked for hearing of the matter about the applicability of the Act with respect to home workers engaged by different firms and independent contractors operating with their own L-2 Licences independently and doing jobs witho