ORDER:

The 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries Company Limited issued a Work Order No. 7600010239 dated 23.04.2025 in favour of the 3rd respondent-M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Lorry Transport, for transportation of Coal. It is the case of the petitioners that they are Drivers working under the 3rd respondent, and they are covered by the benefits of pension and provident fund, as stipulated under Section 6(a) and 6(c) of the Employees Provident Fund Act (EPF Act), and therefore the action of the 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries in insisting the 3rd respondent-employer to enroll the petitioners in Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF), despite the petitioners being members of EPF Act, is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries, and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent No. 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners essentially contends that the petitioners are temporary employees under the control of 3rd respondent, and they are detailed for performing driver duties with regard to transportation of coal at the 1st respondent site, and the petitioners already enrolled under EPF Act, and they are happy with the benefits under the EPF Act, and the CMPF being only applicable for the limited period of the present Work Order issued to the 3rd respondent to perform the coal transportation work with the 1st respondent, and the petitioners being interested in continuing with the benefits conferred under EPF Act, the insistence of 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries to simultaneously enroll the petitioners in CMPF also, despite the fact that the petitioners have already been enrolled under the EPF Act, is adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners under Section 6(A) and 6(C), and therefore such an insistence by 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries, is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-Singareni Collieries submits that the subject issue is similar to the one in W.P. No. 20583 of 2025, and based on the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No. 20583 of 2025, learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioners, and their employer (respondent No.3) are governed by the Work Order No. 7600010239 dated 23.04.2025, and as per Circular dated 03.12.2024, the hired/conveyance vehicle contractors’ drivers and coal transport contractor drivers (contractors’ employees) are invariably covered under CMPF Scheme and Coal Mines Pension Scheme, and therefore the petitioners have no choice to opt between EPF or CMPF scheme.

4.1 Learned Standing Counsel, by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13061 of 2021 and batch (filed by the respective transport contractors/employers), contends that the Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 24.08.2022, by holding that a driveremployed by the transport contractor engaged by the 1st respondent-Singareni Collieries would come within the definition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(b) of the Act, and therefore the employee would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. It is further contended that the Special Leave Petitions, vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 47803/2023, filed against the said judgment, have also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Judgment dated 16.04.2024.

4.2. Learned Standing Counsel by referring to paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit would however contend that the Contract Management Manual – April, 2024 of Coal India Limited with regard to employment of Labour at Clause 28 gives voluntary option for the employees to opt for either EPF/CMPF. The relevant sub-clauses (2) and (3) under Clause 28 reads as follows:

“28. Employment of Labour:

28.1. …

1. …

2. If any employee of a Contractor