REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MANGLORE Vs. CENTRAL AERCANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO OP LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench held that 45 persons who were selected as trainees were not covered by Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the Act) as they cannot be called as "employees" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The respondent invited applications from the intending applicants for undergoing training at its Chocolate Factory, Puttur on a stipend of Rs.600/- per month which may be increased to Rs.800/- per month after six months. It was also provided that the successful candidates may be considered for regular posting in the factory. By its resolution dated 21-1-1990 after interviewing 270 applicants, 45 persons were selected. By a combined order dated 3-2-1990, Managing Director notified the 45 persons who were selected. It was clearly indicated therein that the training in the factory does not entitle any trainee to claim right of appointment after completion of training period. It was also stipulated that if any trainee leaves the factory within one year, he was required to refund the amount received by him as stipend. Notice was issued by the appellant purportedly under Section 7-A of the Act in respect of the said 45 trainees. By order dated 15-5-1991 the appellant held that the trainees were employees for the purpose of the Act and the respondent is liable to pay the quantified amount.

(3.) Writ application was filed by the respondent questioning the determination. A learned single Judge with reference to various provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short Standing Orders Act) and The Apprentices Act, 1961 (in short the Apprentices Act) held that the demand was unsustainable. A writ appeal was filed before the Division Bench which as noticed above dismissed the same.