The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the interpretation of 'basic wages' for provident fund contributions under the Employees Provident Fund & M.P. Act, 1952.

M.L. Mehta, J.

Both these writ petitions are being disposed of together as they have arisen out of a common order dated 01.05.2000 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Both the Petitioners herein, namely M/s. Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. ("M/s. GSGL' for short) and M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. ("M/s. Whirlpool' for short) had challenged order dated 31.05.1999/02.07.1999 & 31.05.1999/22.06.1999 respectively passed against them by the Respondent No. 2 herein, namely, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad (Haryana) u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & M.P. Act, 1952 (for short "the Act). In both the cases, the Commissioner directed the Petitioners to pay additional provident fund contributions on the amount shown as HRA, conveyance allowance and washing allowance. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dismissed the appeals of the Petitioners holding that M/s. GSGL was supplying security personnel to one M/s. Havels (I) Ltd. as a contractor and that all these personnel were the employees of the establishment where they were deputed. It was held that since the employees were employed by M/s. GSGL for the principal employer, hence, the principal employer/establishment where the personnel were deputed was liable to pay PF contributions of those employees. Based on this premise, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal. 2. There is no dispute to the fact that M/s GSGL is an independent legal entity and operates all over the world having workforce of large number of employees and engaged in the business of providing "security guard services" to various establishments all over India. M/s. Whirlpool Ltd. and M/s. Havels (I) Ltd. are some of its clients. It is also not in dispute that M/s. GSGL is independently covered under the provisions of EPF Act by virtue of notification u/s 1(3)(b) of the Act which extends provisions of the said Act to establishments engaged in the business of providing "security guard services" and that it has been granted a code number by the authority under the Act. It is also not in dispute that PF department has been accepting contributions from M/s. GSGL treating it as the "employer" in respect of the said employees.

3. The commissioner initiated proceedings u/s 7A of the Act against the Petitioners on the ground that M/s GSGL had allegedly violated compliance under the said Act by not depositing PF contributions on the additional component of HRA, conveyance allowance and washing allowance as paid by it to its employees who were employed by its clients namely M/s Whirlpool and M/s Havels (I) Ltd. The first question that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is as to whether the security guards/personnel provided by M/s GSGL to its clients M/s. Whirlpool and Ors. would be its employees or that these personnel would be the employees of the establishment to whom they are provided. In other words the question would be as to whether it is M/s GSGL who is the employer of those personnel or it would be the clients of M/s GSGL to whom such personnel are provided. The other question would be as to whether there was any additional liability payable in respect of those personnel by their employer.

4. The contention of the Petitioners is that it is M/s GSGL alone who is the employer in relation to those personnel who were employed by it in various establishments. I am in full agreement with the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners in this regard. There is no dispute that M/s GSGL is engaged in the activities of providing "security guard services" which is recognized under the Act as primary activity and not as an agency. It is not disputed that M/s GSGL is an establishment with large number of employees and is directly covered by the provisions of the Act. It has been allotted a PF code number for direct compliance of the provisions of the Act.