The definition of 'employee' under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act excludes apprentices, affirming the status of trainees as non-employees for related benefits.

Judgment:

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ petitioners being the statutory authorities working under the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and discharging their statutory functions under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed thereafter, have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the learned Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 497 (15) of 2009 under Section 71 of the . The learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal being ATA No. 497(15) of 2009 filed by the respondent no. 2, M/s. Klar Sehen Pvt. Ltd., the appellate tribunal set aside the order passed by the petitioners/provident fund authorities under Section 7A of the Employees Provident fund authorities under of the .

2. The petitioners on 7th November,2006 received a complaint against the respondent no. 2, from the secretary of AAL West Bengal Sales Representatives Union, stating that respondent no. 2 had deprived the trainee medical representatives working in respondent company from the legitimate right of becoming a member under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .

3. As such Enforcement Officers were appointed to inspect the office of the respondent no. 2 and the said Enforcement Officers submitted a report on 21^st December, 2006.

4. The Petitioners on the basis of the said report dated 29^th December, 2006 initiated the proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and summon was issued to the respondent company on 12^th March, 2007.

5. Pursuant to the said summon, hearing under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 took place on several dates and after giving several opportunity of hearing to the respondent company, an order under of the was passed on 6th February, 2009, by holding that the trainee medical representatives working in the respondent company were neither apprentices under the Apprentice Act of 1961 or under standing orders and as such they had to be considered as “employee” within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the and paragraph 26 (1) (a) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and would be entitled for all benefits under the .

6. An amount of Rs. 18, 74, 239/- as the total dues in respect of the said trainee medical representatives working under the respondent no. 2 for the period 5/1999 to 3/2007 was demanded.

7. The respondent no. 2 did not submit the assessed amount of Rs. 18, 74, 239/- and as such the petitioners passed an attachment order to the banker of the respondent company under Section 8F of the of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 6th March , 2009 and 19th March, 2009.

8. The respondent company in the mean time filed an application under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for review of order dated 6^th February, 2009, passed under Section 7A of the pursuant to the leave granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta by an order dated 23rd March, 2009 in writ petition being WPA No. 5303 (W) of 2009, filed by the respondent company.

9. The petitioners after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent company rejected the review application by an order dated 25^th June, 2009, by upholding the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .

10. An order under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was passed on 5^th August, 2009, for the delay in making payment of the amount of Rs. 18, 74, 239/- assessed under Section 7A of the , for the period 5/1999 to 3/2007.

11. The respondent company filed an appeal under Section 71 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being ATA No. 497 (15) of 2009 and in the said appe