The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the appellate authority to consider all relevant legal factors, including precedents, in determining the status of cooperative societies and their members under the EPF Act.

1. These writ petitions were filed by various Handloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Societies. In these writ petitions the petitioners have come forward to challenge an order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in various appeals filed by them.

2. The petitioners' societies aggrieved by the orders passed by the Provident Fund Authorities under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act), had preferred appeals under Section 7-I of the EPF Act. In their appeal memorandum, they contended that the societies are run by its members and they are no employees under the societies. Therefore, the question of covering the alleged workers of the societies will not arise. They also contended that the societies are exempted in terms of Section 16(1)(a) of the EPF Act. Apart from these legal issues, they have also raised other issues, i.e., the societies are extending various benefits to its members. Hence there is no necessity to cover them separately. Along with appeal memos, they have also enclosed several circulars relating to cooperative societies issued by the State Government and gave their written arguments.

3. The Tribunal had entertained those appeals and assigned various appeal numbers and also issued notices to the PF Department. Apart from factual contentions, they had also referred to certain decisions of this court having bearing on the question. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.7.2010 had dismissed the appeals and held that the provisions of the EPF Act will apply to cooperative societies. The members of the societies can also be employees for the purpose of the Cooperative Societies Act. With reference to the exemption claimed under Section 16(a)(1), it was stated that the societies have not proved that they are having less than 50 employees, i.e., they should employee less than 50 persons and work without the aid of power, then alone the cooperative societies will be exempted from the provisions of the Act. With reference to the question whether the members of the societies can also be the employees, the Tribunal held that even the piece rated workers are covered by the definition of the term "employee". Therefore, there is no case made out. It is in that view of the matter, the appeals were rejected. Challenging the same, the writ petitions came to be filed.

4. When these writ petitions came up for hearing, this court had directed notice to be served on the Standing Counsel of the EPF Department Mr.K.Gunasekaran. Accordingly notice was served and a common counter affidavit, dated 27.01.2012 has also been filed by the department.

5. With reference to the question as to whether the members of the cooperative societies can also be employees under the societies, reliance was placed upon a division bench judgment of this Court in Madathupatti Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd., represented by its President Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai and others reported in 2003 (3) L.L.N. 674. It was argued by the department that the said judgment was rendered on technical ground and the issue was not covered under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. Even a person who was engaged in connection with the work of the establishment including home worker is also covered. Since the societies are registered as separate legal entities under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, they are the autonomous body and that the weaver members cannot be said to be employer.

6. However, Mr.A.R.Gokulnath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the Tribunal did not even take note of the judgment of the division bench of this Court which is having direct bearing on the point and also did not refer to various enclosures produced while rejecting the case of the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel first relied upon a judgment of the division bench in Madathupatti Weavers Cooperative Production