K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is a wholly owned Government of India Undertaking engaged in refining and marketing of petroleum products. Inter alia, the petitioner deals with Liquid Petroleum Gas (for brevity ‘LPG’) and has LPG bottling plants across the country. LPG is sold to the customers in cylinders and due to the explosive nature of the product, it is statutorily prescribed that testing of cylinders, has to be carried out once in ten years, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Controller of Explosives. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner invites tenders from notified establishments, having the facility to carry on such statutory test and having been accredited to so carry on such testing.

2. The 3rd respondent was successful in the tender floated by the petitioner and an agreement was entered into as is evidenced by Ext.P1 between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to carry out the statutory testing of cylinders. The period of contract as per Ext.P1 was for three years from the date of work order and the work order as per the agreement is produced as Ext.P2. The agreement, Ext.P1, as also the work order specifically award the contract of statutory testing of LPG cylinders (14.2 Kgs and 19 Kgs.) of the Quilon Bottling Plant. The petitioner is aggrieved by the 7A enquiry initiated by the respondent Organization and the order passed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity ‘EPF Act’) as evidenced by Ext.P6. Ext.P6 was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P8.

3. The petitioner contends that the contract entered into with the 3rd respondent is not for engagement of any workmen to carry out any activity within its premises, but a contract for statutory testing of the LPG cylinders. The 3rd respondent is an accredited Organization who has been issued with a licence by the ‘Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization’ under the Government of India for the specific purpose of establishing and carrying on testing of LPG cylinders which approval has been granted under Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner does not have any supervisory powers with respect to the testing of cylinders nor does it in any manner regulate the testing procedure which is prescribed under the statute. The employees engaged by the 3rd respondent also does not have any relationship with the petitioner nor is the petitioner in the status of a Principal with respect to the employees of the 3rd respondent.

4. Appeals were filed from Ext.P6, both by the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected, whereas the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent regarding coverage under Section 7A of the EPF Act was allowed respectively by Exts.P8 and P9 order.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Organization would contend that the petitioner is in the status of the Principal and is entitled to ensure contributions under the welfare legislations to be paid to the duly constituted authorities under such welfare enactments.

6. It is very evident that Ext.P1 Award of contract, is in the nature of an award of work of statutory testing of cylinders; which the petitioner is bound to statutorily carry out, once in ten years. The 3rd respondent as has been noticed above, has a separate licence for carrying on the work and it is from such accredited establishments that the 3rd respondent was selected on the basis of public tender, to carry on the work of statutory testing of cylinders.

7. The petitioner does not have any control over the work carried on by the 3rd respondent nor can the petitioner be said to be in the status of a Principal with respect to the employees of the 3rd respondent. In this context, the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(f) of the Act is relevant and is extracted herein below: “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of (an establishment) a