The burden of proof lies on the establishment to demonstrate the status of reported persons as employees or apprentices, and a clear training scheme is required for trainees under certified standing orders.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Badar, J.

1. By this original petition, the petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam.

2. It was reported to the authority appointed for determination of money dues from the employer under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act, for short) that the petitioner-establishment has defaulted in payment of various dues under the EPF Act. Irregularities such as evading wages for the period from August 2016 to July 2017 so also not enrolling 196 employees under the EPF Act and nonpayment of their contribution were also reported. That is how the authority under Section 7A of the EPF Act issued summons to the petitioner-establishment for determination of money dues from the petitioner-establishment under the EPF Act. Accordingly, enquiry came to be conducted and during the course of enquiry, it was pointed out the following facts:

(a) Out of 196 non enrolled employees mentioned by the Provident Fund Department, the petitioner-establishment has allotted UAN to 65 of them from 01.10.2015 onwards.

(b) Out of the balance 131 employees, 3 were stated to be ex-Government employees and 1 as excluded employee.

(c) The balance 127 persons were stated to be trainees as detailed in the Annexure out of which 26 have already left their hospital.

3. After due enquiry, the authority under Section 7A of the EPF Act was pleased to hold that there should be clear training scheme for persons engaged as apprentice or trainee under the certified standing orders. The authority also found that during the course of hearing the matter under Section 7A of the EPF Act, the petitioner-establishment has allotted UAN to 65 employees out of 196 employees claimed to be trainees by them. With this the authority concluded that the establishment failed to enroll 196 employees to the membership of the Fund for various spells for the period from August 2011 to July 2017 and all those 196 persons were in fact employees as defined by Section 2(f)of the EPF Act. Accordingly the dues came to be determined.

4. The petitioner assailed the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act by filing an appeal and by the impugned order at Ext. P3, the said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam.

5. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner establishment is running a hospital and it is covered by the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is argued that there is no requirement of framing of any training scheme as per the provisions of the said Act and the persons who are held to be employees were in fact trainees working with the petitioner-establishment. It is also argued that both the authorities below gave erroneous finding that hospitals are not covered by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. M/s. Central Arecanut and Coco Marketing & Processing Cooperative Ltd., Mangalore reported in (2006) 2 SCC 381 and in Sivagiri Sree Narayana Medical Mission Hospital vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 2018 (4) KLT 352. Learned counsel relying on these judgments argued that unless and until standing orders are final, certified model standing orders shall hold the field. Those model standing orders are applicable to the petitioner-establishment and therefore, the petitioner-establishment can engage trainees or apprentice. The alleged employees as stated by the authorities under the EPF Act were in fact apprentice and by the impugned order, the learned Tribunal committed grave error to hold that provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are not applicable to the hospital.

6. As against this, learned Standing Counsel app