IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 30.04.2025 Pronounced on : 21.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P (MD) No.9627 of 2018 M/s.Kanyakumar ... petitioner Vs.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide File No.TN/NGL/ENF/CIRCLE

32/4144/2018 dated 01.03.2018 and quash the same.

For petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent : Mr.J.S.Murali

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the proceedings bearing No.TN/NGL/ENF/CIRCLE 32/4144/2018 dated 01.03.2018, issued by the respondent under Paragraph No.26(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, requiring the petitioner bank to enroll the jewel appraisers of the petitioner Bank under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952'), by treating them as employees under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952, and to pay Provident Fund contributions from the date of joining of the respective jewel appraisers.

2. Heard Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the jewel appraisers appointed by the petitioner Bank are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act 1952, as they were appointed only for the purpose of assessing the purity and quality of the gold jewellery offered to the petitioner Bank for availing the gold loan facility, and that the jewel appraisers are being paid commission charges from out of the service charges collected by the petitioner Bank from the respective loanees. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the jewel appraisers are being paid commission charges as and when their services were utilized, and no fixed monthly or daily wages are being paid to them. He also further contended that the jewel appraisers appointed by the petitioner Bank are not borne on the cadre and are not governed by the Service Rules that are applicable to the employees of the petitioner Bank. He further submitted that the jewel appraisers does not satisfy the basic attributes of an employee and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent requiring the petitioner to enroll the jewel appraisers of the petitioner Bank as members of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court in the cases of “Indian Overseas Bank -vs- Workmen” reported in (2006) 3 SCC 729, “M/s.Puri Urban Cooperative Bank -vs- Madhusudan Sahu and another” reported in (1992) 3 SCC 323 and “M/s.Jayakumar -vs- The Secretary to Government” reported in 2014 (3) LLN 739 (Mad), as well as the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Madurai Bench of this court in W.P (MD) Nos.11571 to 11573 and 9572 to 9574 of 2018.

5. On the other hand, Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the jewel appraisers are being paid by the petitioner Bank the service charges collected by the Bank and therefore, they do come within the meaning of an 'Employee', as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is perfectly in order. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P (MD) No.20952 of 2012 dated 22.07.2021. 6. This court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire material on record.

7. Sections 2(b) and Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952, reads as under:-

“(b) “basic wages” mea