The term 'without the aid of power' under Section 16(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, implies power used in the manufacturing process or generating income, and does not include the standard use of lights, fans, or computers in administrative activities.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is admittedly a Co-operative society having obtained registration under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, and the Rules made thereunder. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner organisation is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). By the original order at Ext.P4, it is found that the petitioner organisation is covered. Though the petitioner had preferred an appeal, the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, by Ext.P8 order, rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Sri.Venugopal, representing Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the EPF Organisation.

3. On a reading of the appellate order at Ext.P8, this Court notices that the claim raised by the petitioner with reference to the entitlement for exemption under Section 16(I)(a) has been considered by the Tribunal, holding that since the petitioner is operating with the “aid of power” the petitioner would not be entitled for exemption, even though the petitioner’s employment strength is below 50.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27900 of 2011 dated 18.01.2013, wherein the very same issue has been considered placing reference on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mansa Nagrik Sahakari bank Ltd and others vs. RPFC of Gujarat State [2003 (3) LLJ 525], which is relied on while passing Exts.P4 and P8 orders.

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court extensively considered the issue and found as under :

“7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that in view of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, the petitioner is an establishment wherein 20 or more persons are working. The only question is whether the petitioner being a society registered under the Co- operative Societies Act is entitled to claim exemption as provided u/s. 16(1)(a) of the Act. The exemption is available to such establishment registered under the Co- operative Societies Act or under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to Co-operative societies employing less than 50 persons and working “without the aid of power”. Question is whether use of electric lights, fans and computers, would amount to an establishment working “with the aid of power”. The very concept of providing an exemption to Co-operative Societies in which less than 50 persons are employed is for the purpose of granting some benefit to such institutions. The authorities have taken a view that using light, fans and also use of computers amounts to the society working with aid of power. The argument of the petitioner is that the society is running an educational establishment and for imparting education no power is being used. The educational purpose is entirely different from other commercial activities that are being carried on by other establishments like industrial units, factories or other agencies which uses electricity for running any machines. Lights, fans and computers are all normal equipments which are common equipments for institutions and no office or institution could function without lights or fan and at the present day situation even without computers. That being the situation the contention is that these are all items normally required and in use in all institutions and while interpreting the exemption to certain categories of societies, such interpretation should not amount to denial of exemption.

8. If the exemption clause under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, is read o