1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.06.2009 of learned Single Judge in OWP Nos: 959/2003 and 37/2007 titled Divisional Manager and ors v. State of J&K & Ors.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement) Jammu (for short "the Commissioner") has issued various notices to the State Forest Corporation asking them to deposit the contribution for the workers engaged by the Contractors/Mates of the Corporation for extration of Work under the Jammu and Kashmir Employees Provident Funds (And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The Corporation, however, failed to make contributions so recovery proceedings were initiated against the Corporation by the Special Tehsildar (Recovery) Assistant Collector 1st Class Jammu. A writ petition OWP No. 959/2003 was filed by the Corporation seeking quashment of the notices issued by the Special Tehsildar (Recovery). During the pendency of the said writ petition, another writ petition OWP No. 37/2007 was also filed by the Corporation seeking direction to the Commissioner not to proceed against the Corporation Under the provisions of the Act. These petitions were considered by the Court and vide a common judgment dated 02.06.2009, learned Single Judge, allowed both the petitions and quashed the recovery notices impugned in these petition. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the Commissioner to determine the amount payable by the Corporation as employer’s/employees contribution under the Act and the Scheme in force after holding an enquiry and hearing the Corporation in this behalf in terms of the provisions of Section 8-A of the Act. Learned Single Judge thus found that the Act was applicable to the Corporation also but found that the notices impugned were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 8-A of the Act.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the findings of the learned Single Judge, the Corporation has now filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the judgment and order dated 2.6.2009. Various pleas have been taken to assail the judgment interalia that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the case of the Corporation and that the learned Single has wrongly interpreted section 2(d) of the Act which defines the employee covered under the provisions of the Act.

Section 2(d) of the Act provides as under:

"2(d) " Employee" means any persons whose services are non-pensionable and who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise in or in connection with the work of an establishment and who get his wages directed or indirectly from the employer and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of establishment."

The learned Single Judge while interpreting the word "employee" found that the definition included even those persons who are employed by or through a contractor, in connection with the work of an establishment. The learned Single Judge observed that labour engaged by the contrator/mate who were admitted by the Corporation to be doing the work of the Corporation fell within the definition of the "employee" in terms of the provisions of the Act. Wages drawn by a worker may not thus have any relevance in determining his/her status for the purpose of considering the applicability of the provisions of the Act to an employee, seeking deposit of contributions under the Act with the Provident Fund Commissioner.

4. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants would assail the said finding by submitting that wages payable to the workers would not fall within the definition of basic wages so the provisions of the Act would not apply to the employers.

5. Heard.

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which is under challanged in the present appeal.

7. A plain reading of the section 2(d) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document