HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28046 of 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

18.07.2014 passed by respondent No.1 in A.T.A.No.386(1)

2012.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) and as respondent No.2 failed to pay the dues in respect of certain employees, an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act was initiated by the petitioner and an order, dated 24.02.2012 was passed treating the honorarium paid to the lecturers appointed for stop gap arrangement as wages and determining the Provident Fund dues. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed A.T.A.No.386(1)2012 before respondent No.1.

3. The contention of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is that stop-gap arrangement cannot be treated as permanent employment to fasten the liability on it for remitting the contributions under the provisions of the Act. It is also contended that the lecturers/teachers were engaged for shorter duration during the absence of regular lecturers and therefore, the employees working on payment of honorarium as stop gap arrangement are not entitled regular payment and also there was no contract of employment as contemplated under Section 2 (b) of the Act. 4. The learned Tribunal-respondent No.1 taking note of the various orders passed and relying upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur v. T.S.Hariharan, [1971 I LLJ 416], has come to the conclusion that the employees, who were not regular and were engaged periodically and in the absence of any contract of employment as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Act, cannot be treated as to the emoluments paid to them and accordingly, set aside the orders passed by the petitioner herein. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. In view of the findings given by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order, this Court does not find any legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court that too after lapse of ten years of passing of the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the issue, whether the employees, who were engaged as part time employees, honorarium employees and adhoc employees on stop gap arrangement would fall within the definition of employees under Section 2(b) of the Act or not, is required to be decided in appropriate case, in accordance with law. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

02.08.2024 gkv