A part-time medical officer who is required to perform regular duties, even on a part-time basis, and whose income tax has been deducted by the company, is an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and is entitled to Provident Fund benefits.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated June 30, 1989 passed by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Civil Order No. 7297 (W) of 1989 rejecting the writ application. The Writ petition was filed by the petitioner company challenging the order, dated May 26, 1989 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, respectively under Section 71 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 demanding the liability of the petitioner Company in respect of the Provident Fund dues of respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh who was held to be an employee of the petitioner company.

( 2 ) THE question that has been raised in this appeal is whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh as a Part time Medical Officer of the appellant company will be termed as an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

( 3 ) IT is the case of the appellant-company that the respondent No. 2 was appointed to render medical services and that the said contract under which the employment was made was a contract for services and not for service. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 2 is a Private Doctor and cannot claim employment to the establishment and he has only rendered his services to the workmen of the appellant-company. In this connection a reference was made by the appellant to the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the said Act. Section 2 (f) of the said Act provides as hereunder: employee' means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of (an establishment) and employer (and includes any person. . . . (1) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (2) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment)".

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the services of the respondent No. 2 was terminated by giving one month's notice on March 12, 1988 alleging that his service as a Part-time Medical Officer was no longer required. The terms and conditions of employment as set out in the letter of appointment are inter alia as hereunder:". . . . . . . (2) You will have to attend your duties normally for three hours from 11 a. m. to 2 p. m. and on Saturday the same will be for 2 hours from 11 a. m. to 1 p. m. (3) You will be available for attending any emergency cases at any time in our company on call. (4) You will not be entitled to any benefit, e. g. Provident Fund, Leave, Bonus etc. which are being usually granted to regular employees of the company. (5) Your employment as Part-time Medical Officer may terminate on one month's notice on either side. "

( 5 ) BEFORE making such a decision by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which was under the challenge in the writ petition, it appears that notice was duly served upon the appellant-company as well as the Private respondent and the appellant-company and the respondent No. 2 were duly heard by the Commissioner and on consideration of rival contentions of the parties and on consideration of records and documents that were available before the authority concerned, the authority concerned came to the conclusion that the Private respondent was an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the said Act and consequently the appellant-company has the responsibility to pay the Provident Fund dues to the said respondent. Accordingly, the Provident Fund Authority had determined Rs. 41,230. 00 as representing both the shares along with interest as admissible under the Provident Fund Rules for the respective years, namely, from June 1, 1968 to March 12, 1988. It also appears from the record under Section 7a of the said