DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Introduction:

1. A courier service with its registered office at Mumbai contracts with a person in Kerala to let him operate as its franchisee in one District. That franchise, in turn, appoints agents in that district so that he could have a network of people to effectively carry out the courier business. Those agents engage their workforce to assist them. The relationship between the franchisee and the agents, on the one hand, and that bewteen the franchisee and the workmen engaged by the agents, on the other, fall for consideration in this case. In terms of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, should we treat the agents as the franchisee’s branches or units?

Facts:

2. The petitioner, Sayed Navas, is the proprietor of ‘the Professional Couriers’, dealing in courier services. The cause-title in the writ petition and, now, in the writ appeal, shows the proprietary concern, a non-juristic entity, as the petitioner. So we refer to the petitioner as “the Professional Couriers” instead of “Sayed Navas”, the original petitioner —a technicality that can be condoned.

3. The Professional Couriers is the franchisee of the eponymous franchiser, a private limited company at Mumbai. Both the franchisee and the franchiser have entered into the Ext.P1 agreement. Similarly, the franchisee, too, contracted with 11 persons, his agents, who have to operate on a commission basis. All the agents work independent of one another. The agents are, it is asserted, neither the branches nor the departments of the franchisee—just independent agents.

4. On 7.11.2002, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the second respondent, directed the franchisee to produce records of its establishment, including “all branches.” Though the franchisee sought time to produce the documents asked for, the Assistant Commissioner, besides refusing to grant time, passed an order on 2nd January 2003, holding that the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the EPF Act) will apply to the franchisee’s establishment. The Assistant Commissioner found that the franchisee had employed more than 20 persons as on 1.4.2001. He allotted a code number to the franchisee treating the agents as the branches.

5. On the franchisee’s objection, the Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act to ascertain whether the Act applies. The franchisee, through its pleadings in the Exts.P4 to P6, contended that it had engaged fewer than 20 persons (to be precise, seven) and that it has only one office, at Kannur. It also contended that the agents would get fixed annual commission, and those agents would arrange to carry on their business. The franchisee led evidence, both oral and documentary. Eventually, on 22nd May 2007, the Assistant Commissioner ruled through the Ext.P7 order that the franchisee’s agents are, in fact, its branches and that the establishment is amenable to the provident fund provisions.

6. Aggrieved, the franchisee appealed to the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), the first respondent. On merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal through the Ext.P9 order. Further aggrieved, the franchisee filed W.P. (C) No.7905 of 2011 before this Court. Through the judgment, dt.11.03.2016, a learned Single Judge, too, dismissed the writ petition. Thus, all through, the findings are concurrent. Eventually, the franchisee is before us in the writ appeal.

Findings in W.P. (C) No.7905 of 2016:

7. From the terms of the agreements the franchisee has entered into with its, what it calls, agents, the learned Single Judge has concluded that the employer and the employee relationship stood established: the ultimate control—both financial and administrative— stands vested with the franchisee.

8. Heard Sri E.K. Nanda Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, for the franchisee, and Sri K.C. Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents, besides perusing