The central legal point established in the judgment is the inclusive definition of an 'employee' under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, covering any person engaged directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment and paid wages.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present LPA arises out of a judgment dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 11075/2016 titled M/S Naveen Vidya Bharti Public Higher Secondary School Thr Its Director Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhopal, by which the learned Single Judge has upheld the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal (the "EPFAT") dated 22.11.2013 (the "Writ Petition").

2. The facts of the case reveal that M/s Naveen Vidya Bharti Public Higher Secondary School, bearing Code No. MP/21897 (the "Appellant Establishment") was not complying with the statutory provisions as contained under the Employees. Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the "Act").

3. The Appellant Establishment was subjected to the rigors of the Act from 01.01.2010. Subsequently, proceedings were carried out under Section 7A of the Act and the Enforcement Officer (as defined under the Act) (the "EO") appointed under Section 13(1) of the Act submitted his inspection report on 09.09.2011 in relation to compliance under the Act qua the Appellant Establishment (the "Report").

4. The Appellant Establishment agreed with the Report to the extent that Employee Provident Fund ("EPF") liability fastened upon them from the year 2011 onwards. However, the dues for the period from April 2008 to March 2011 were disputed by them.

5. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (the "APFC") after hearing the Appellant Establishment at length, and subsequent to verifying the documents on record as well as the Report arrived at a conclusion vide an order dated 28.09.2011 that the Appellant Establishment would be covered under the Act with effect from a prior date i.e., 01.04.2008 as it was observed that the Appellant Establishment had 20 employees as on 01.04.2008. The APFC directed the Appellant Establishment to remit the dues within 15 days of receipt of order.

6. The Appellant Establishment aggrieved by the order passed by the APFC under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 preferred an appeal before the EPFAT. Vide an order dated 22.11.2013, the EPFAT arrived at a conclusion that no material evidence was brought on record to contradict the Report. In this context, Appellant Establishment was liable to remit the provident fund dues as determined by the APFC.

7. The Appellant Establishment, thereafter, preferred a Review Petition under Section 7-L (2) of the Act and the same was dismissed by the EPFAT on 07.10.2016. Thereafter, the Appellant Establishment preferred the Writ Petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the APFC as well as the order of the EPFAT. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant Establishment vide a judgment dated 22.07.2019. The operative paragraphs of the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge as contained in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 13 reads as under:

"6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the hearing that the bus of the school was operated by an independent contractor who employed a driver and a conductor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school has not made any payment to the contractor for the driver and conductor. The driver and conductor were not the employees of the school and have been wrongly included by the department as the school employees. Reliance is placed on Springdales School and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr., 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1457, International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 and Katari Coloring Factory v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 537. It is further submitted that the Chairman of the School has been included as an employee of the school on the ground that he was drawing a salary. It is submitted that the Chairman of the school cannot be treated as an employee. Reliance is placed on Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Sarathi Li