The Appellate Tribunal rightly limited Provident Fund coverage to canteen employees, confirming that casual and contract workers lack a defined employment connection under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Judgment :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.08.2007 passed by the respondent no.1, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner/EPFO’s case in short is that the respondent no.2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its office is at 30, B.T. Road, Khardah, P.O. Sukchar, District-North 24-Parganas, West Bengal, Pin Code-743179.

3. The establishment was covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and two provident fund Code Numbers being WB/15443 and WB/3405 were issued to two units namely M/s. Electro Steel Castings Limited (Steel Foundry Works) and M/s. Electrosteel Castings Limited (Spun pipe works) respectively on administrative grounds.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner/EPFO that the respondent no. 2 failed to extend it’s membership under the said Act to their job trainees/junior trainees/canteen staffs/security staffs and other employees of its units, and so a squad of Enforcement Officers of the petitioners were deputed to detect evasion of membership.

5. The squad of Enforcement Officers of the petitioner no. 1 inspected the office of the respondent no. 2 on 17.06.1999. The respondent no. 2 failed to produce any document/papers before the squad of enforcement officers of the petitioner no. 1 for the purpose of inspection.

6. The squad of Enforcement Officer of the petitioner no. 1 submitted a Part-II inspection report on 17.06.1999 to the Managing Director of the respondent no. 2 directing them to regularize the anomalies by allowing membership to all the employees irrespective of the nature of employment i.e. contract labour, temporary or casual labour and daily rated employees from the date of joining the respondent no. 2 with effect from 01.11.1990.

7. The squad of Enforcement Officers of the petitioner no. 1 again visited the respondent no. 2 on 22.09.2000 and 16.10.2000 with prior intimation to the respondent no. 2 for the purpose of verifying the relevant records/documents in connection with the evasion of Provident Fund Membership. The inspection report dated 16.10.2000 stated that the employees employed in the respondent no. 2, establishment have not been allowed provident fund benefits.

8. On disposal of the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, the respondent no. 2/company filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 17155(W) of 2002 challenging the order dated 22.11.2002, wherein the Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law, on an appeal being preferred by the company. The company accordingly filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeal was allowed in part by the Tribunal vide the order under challenge dated 25^th August, 2007. Hence, the writ application by the EPFA.

9. The tribunal vide the order under challenge on considering the materials on record allowed the appeal in part and the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Barrackpore under Section 7A of the Act was set aside except to the extent that the benefits were confirmed in respect of the canteen workers.

10. The Provident Fund Organization being aggrieved with the said order has preferred the writ application on the ground that the company is liable to pay the dues in respect of the casual and contractual workers also and it is submitted that the order of the autho