Back
2020 Supreme(All) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
C/M Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank A-1 Civil Lines Raebareli - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund & Ors. - Respondent
MISC. SINGLE No. 5973 of 2011
Decided On : 21-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anupras Singh
For the Respondent: Pradeep Raje, Om Prakash Pandey, Rajesh Kumar Verma
Point of Law
Definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Act is inclusive definition and has wide scope so as to include the persons engaged either directly or indirectly in employment of the establishment. It will be noticed that the terms of definition are very wide including not only the persons directly employed or even through a contractor.
Headnote:
Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 - Section 7A - Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as well as order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 - Petitioner has further challenged the order issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Allahabad – Held, Safai Karmachari are employed with the petitioner-Bank for the purpose of cleaning their premises on regular basis. The petitioner establishment is a regular and continuous establishment and admittedly the Safai Karmachari are being paid wages on monthly basis for the work done by them. The bipartite agreement cannot restrict the width, ambit and scope of statutory enactment and despite the provisions being made by bipartite agreement the benefit of provident fund would be available only to those employees who work for more than six hours a day, cannot restrict the scope of the persons like the Safai Karmachari who are otherwise covered by the definition of employees as provided under Section 2-F of the Act – Petition dismissed (Paras 18 and 19).
Finding of the Court
Safai Karmachari are employed with the petitioner-Bank for the purpose of cleaning their premises on regular basis. The petitioner establishment is a regular and continuous establishment and admittedly the Safai Karmachari are being paid wages on monthly basis for the work done by them. The bipartite agreement cannot restrict the width, ambit and scope of statutory enactment and despite the provisions being made by bipartite agreement the benefit of provident fund would be available only to those employees who work for more than six hours a day, cannot restrict the scope of the persons like the Safai Karmachari who are otherwise covered by the definition of employees as provided under Section 2-F of the Act.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R. K. Verma, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as well as order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Varanasi issued in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 26.8.2011 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Allahabad.
3. Petitioner has submitted that he is a Regional Rural Bank sponsored by the Bank of Baroda and set up by the Government under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Originally the petitioner was known as Sultanpur Regional Rural Bank. However, the petitioner bank along with other Regional Rural Banks sponsored by the Bank of Baroda in U.P. was merged together into two new entities namely Baroda Eastern U.P. Gramin Bank and Baroda Western U.P. Gramin Bank vide notification dated 23.2.2006 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act. Thereafter vide Notification dated 31.3.2008 the above two Gramin Banks were merged into Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank by the Central Government.
4. He has submitted that the work of cleaning of the premises in the instant case is done by the persons engaged as part time sweepers and are paid consolidated amount on monthly basis by the Branch Manager of the Bank and they are working only for a period of half to one hour per day and such persons were not restrained to work elsewhere and are in fact employed to do similar or other work in other establishments. On the basis of above facts the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is not liable to deposit any money towards its contribution in regard to such persons engaged as sweepers by the Bank as per the Provident Fund Act. His main contention is that such part time sweepers cannot be termed as bank employees because though they were doing the work of sweeping but the same cannot be said to be employees of the Bank within the meaning of definition of Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
5. A complaint was filed by the Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Union with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bareilly that part time sweepers employed by the Bank were not being given benefits of Provident Funds Act. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner directed the petitioner to provide details about of engagements of such part time sweepers since 1.6.2001. The Bank denying the allegations made in the said complaint stated that there was no post of sweepers in the Bank and said part time sweepers were not employees of the Bank. Due to the fact that they were not the employees of the Bank there was no statutory duties in relation to such part time persons as provided in Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952. The Bank further informed by means of the letter dated 2.12.2009 that in view of the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Bank Employees Unions and the Banks, such part time sweepers who do not work for more than six hours do not fall within the definition of "employees" and are not entitled to the benefit of the Provident Fund contribution. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter dated 10.4.2013 issued notice to the Bank for commencing proceedings under Section 7A of the Act holding such part time Safai Karmachari are employees of the Bank under the Act and issued directions to deposit the statutory dues in respect of such part time workers.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.2013 of the Regional Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeal before Employees Provident Fund Appellate T
