The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad interpretation of the term 'employee' under the Act, encompassing workers employed in connection with the work of an establishment, whether directly or through a contractor.

1. In the present petition the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6th June, 1996 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (In short RPFC) directing the Petitioner to report compliance in respect of the 36 employees under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (in short the Act) and directing the Petitioner to produce the relevant records for determination of the dues payable by the establishment.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act and covered under the Act. During the relevant period it was engaged in the business of importing and exporting of minerals and metals which were canalized items and imports could be made only through a canalizing agency which the Petitioner was. For the purpose of transportation of goods from railway station to the godown, the Petitioner used to engage transporters from time to time with whom the Petitioner entered into an agreement. An agreement in this regard was entered into with Shri Zaffar, the transporter on 1st April, 1979. On 10th

July, 1987 the Respondent issued a notice to the Petitioner with regard to coverage of persons engaged by the transporter under Section 7A of the Act. Pursuant to the show cause notice, a reply was sent resulting in passing of the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the transporter was carrying his own business and without the transporter being held a contractor, persons engaged by him will not fall within the definition of the employee. It was a business deal and an agreement which has been entered into between the Petitioner and Shri Zaffar followed by other persons from time to time and the workers of the third party cannot be held to be the workers of the Petitioner. No evidence was led by the workers in support of their claim and the transporters who were independent establishments were not impleaded as parties. Merely on the basis of the agreement executed between the Petitioner and the transporter the impugned order was passed. A perusal of the agreement would show that the same was fixed per metric tonne and not in terms of the manpower used. Further, the work of unloading from the wagon, loading in the trucks and unloading in the godown are incidental to the work of transportation and are required to be carried out by the transporter. Reliance is placed on SpringdalesSchooland Ors. Vs. RPFC and Another 2006 (2) LLJ 321 to contend that the persons engaged by the transporter for the work of transportation of children from the residence to the school were not the employees within the meaning of 2(f) of the Act. Reliance is also placed on Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation (1978) 4 SCC 204; Ramala Sahkari Chii Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Anr. (2000) 9 SCC 540 and Karachi Bakery, Hyderabad Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1991 (62) FLR 627 (DB) A.P. There is no evidence on record to show that these employees were working only for the Petitioner and for no other employer.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent contends that as per the definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Act the Petitioner is the principal employer and the workers engaged even through the contractor are his employees for the purposes of payment of provident fund contributions and as such the Petitioner is liable to pay provident fund contributions of the workers engaged by it. During the period 1974 to 1981 the Petitioner entered into agreements with different contractors/ handling agents for the purpose of loading, unloading and stacking of the material in the godowns, warehouses and for this purpose employed 36 employees. Though the contractors changed during

this period, however these 36 workers did not change, meaning that these workers were directly employed by the Petitioner and the contractors we