JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

1. The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 32 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabapuram, dated 13.08.2003 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 183 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram dated 13.01.2000.

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under:

2.1. The appellant before this Court is the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 183 of 1998 and unsuccessful appellant in A.S. No. 32 of 2000. Against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2.2. The appellant Society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 30/1993 whose members main business is to get the yarn from the Society and convert the same into textile goods. According to the respondents, the Society had 479 members when the enquiry was conducted on 29.09.1997. The Society started functioning from 13.06.1945 and continued to pay wages to its members and therefore, the first respondent herein conducted inquiry and issued with coverage notice on 30.09.1997 and allotted separate EPF Code bearing No. 33252 covering the establishment with effect from 01.09.1978 and communicated to the appellant herein followed with Section 7(A) summon notice under the EPF Act was issued on 13.10.1997 for the period to till the date of notice. The appellant through his then Secretary, namely, Arumugam and Assistant Manager C. Vijayakumari participated in the inquiry and after perusal of the consolidate statement of salary given to the weaving members and staff determined the contribution by way of speaking order to a sum of Rs. 12,05,453.75 vide order dated 17.11.1997.

2.3. The appellant challenged the said order before the Civil Court in O.S. No. 183 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabapuram who dismissed the suit on 13.01.2000 and later the first appellate Court also dismissed A.S. No. 32 of 2000 on 20.03.2000. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant is before this Court for the relief stated supra.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that first of all, there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellant Company and the workers engaged by them. The workers were not employees under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act as alleged by the respondents herein. He further submitted that the weaving machines used by the workers were owned by them and not provided by the appellant Society. The workers worked from their homes and not at the production centers of the appellant Society. Hence, the work performed by them, could be done by their relatives, or any other person on their behalf. Furthermore, the workers were not bound to report to the production centers regularly, nor were they required to work at the production centers. No department action can be taken against the workers, if they did not turn up to the Society. The appellant Society exercised no supervisory control over the workers. He also submitted that they had no direct or indirect control over the workers. The conversion of cloth into garment could be done by any person on behalf of the workers. Hence, the appellant Society did not exercise any supervisory control over the workers. The appellant further submitted that on an erroneous appreciation of facts, the respondents had wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and it is also liable to pay contributions. In these circumstances, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the workers employed by the appellant Society fall within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. He further submitted that even before the trial Court, they filed written statement that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. Therefo