1. The Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act is trading and engaged in export as well. To carry on its functioning it maintains regional offices in various cities of the country and one such office is located in MMTC Bhavan, Vishakhapatnam as well as at the Harbour office which is also located at Vishakhapatnam Port.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that Shri Kumar, Appalaraju, Ramana, Mohan, Mohan Rao and B. Prakash Rao, members of Visakhapatnam Zila SC, ST and OBC Safai Karamchari Sangam (in short the Sangam) are not covered under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called EPF & MP Act) when they were performing duties in the Petitioner’s establishment as members of the Sangam in pursuance of a contract awarded to Sangam by the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner throughout is that the abovementioned persons were not employees of Sangam (except Shri B. Prakash Rao) and that Sangam carried out work itself through its members and not employees within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the EPF & MP Act. In the year 1989, the Commissioner for SC & ST recommended that the public sector enterprises may be directed to dispense with the practice of assigning safai work on contract and this work maybe assigned to cooperative societies formed by the members belonging to SC/ST. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Zila SC/ST and OBC Safari Karamchari Sangam (in short the Sangam) approached the Petitioner company and offered to carry out the work of cleaning and maintenance at the company’s offices at Visakhapatnam. The company agreed to pay a fixed amount to Sangam which amount included cost of material and labour. The members of Sangam, who carried out the work was never employed by Sangam. There was no relationship of employer and employee between Sangam and its members who used to carry out the work in Petitioner’s premises and therefore the said persons did not fall within the definition of “employee” as defined in Section 2(f) of the EPF & MP Act.

3. Subsequently for the purposes of gardening, Sangam engaged a gardner, Mr. B. Prakash Rao. He was engaged by Sangam as its employee for gardening purposes. Mr. M. Jagdiswara Rao, Member EPF Committee and State Secretary of BMS (A) made a complaint to EPFO that MMTC was not extending provident fund benefits to an employee as a Gardner for last 12 years. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Act and names of Shri Kumar, Appalaraju, Ramana, Mohan and Mohan Rao were also added in the said proceedings even though they were not the employees of Sangam. On 4th November, 2002 APFC issued show cause notice to the Petitioner, reply to which was filed by the Petitioner on 17th November, 2003. On 27th July, 2005 APFC passed an order holding that the said persons were coverable under the EPF &MP Act and assessed the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the EPF Tribunal on 26th September, 2005. The learned EPF Tribunal vide its order dated 1st June, 2010 dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner holding that no infirmity is noticed in the order of EPF authorities.

4. Reliance is placed on the definition of “Employees” under Section 2(f) of the EPF & MP Act wherein a contract of employment between the employee and employer and wages as consideration is an essential element. It is further contended that one of the primary test to check an employer employee relationship is the control and the manner in which the work has to be carried out. Reliance is placed on Chintaman Rao and Anr. Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1958 SC 388. The letter of offer by the society itself says that they are the members of the Sangam and they have provided with rates, terms and conditions along with the material for undertaking the work. The contention of the Petitioner has neither been considered by the EPF Auth