WIPRO ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short 'Act' and the Schemes framed thereunder, aggrieved by the summons dated 1.7.2013 Annexure-E issued by the respondent and the initiation of proceedings, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 7A of the said Act has presented this petition. Memorandum of writ petition discloses that petitioner, an establishment in the State of Karnataka has a unit at Mysore engaged in manufacture of tight luminaries engaging 160 employees in various categories, assigned with provident fund code No. KN/Mysore/10165, under which contributions both of the employer and employees are remitted under monthly returns, in the custody of the respondent- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from the year 1999 onwards.

(2.) The Apprentices Act, 1961 promulgated by the Central Government with the object of regulating and imparting training of apprentices in vocational, educational through work experience, petitioner has made adequate facilities to enable apprentices to learn practical aspects of the subject through field study so as to supplement institutional learning. Petitioner asserts that under such scheme 'on the job training' is extended to apprentices to secure adequate competence and skill required for various occupations leading to securing suitable employment or self-employment in organized industries. The Director-General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Enforcement, Govt. of India, in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and rules framed therein issued a notification dated 7.11.2007 designating 27 trades under "Centre of Excellence" (COE), Trade group for implementation of the scheme wherein the duration of training is two years out of which classroom training in Industrial Training institute (ITI) is one year six months and as in-plant trainee in industry for six months. Govt. of Karnataka too framed guidelines dated 9.3.2010 for In-plant trainees whereunder none of the Labour statutes are applicable to such trainees, under specialized module, clarifying that during the tenure of training, the In-plant trainees are not required to be covered under any labour enactments, it is further asserted that under section 18 of Apprentices Act, 1961 every trainee undergoing traineeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker and the provisions of any law with respect to labour are inapplicable. According to the petitioner, the Govt. of Karnataka obtained approval from the competent authorities to sponsor trainees to undergo In-plant 5 training for a period of six months under the Scheme, 'COE', supra, in the petitioner's industry and accorded approval to sponsor trainees to undergo implant training for a short period of two months based upon the request from colleges. It is in this backdrop that ITI, Malavalli and Mandya sponsored the In-plant trainees to the petitioner's factory vide letter dated 3.4.2013 enclosing copies of letters of Govt. of Karnataka. It is contended that though there is no statutory obligation on the part of the petitioner's establishment to pay stipend for In-plant training for six months, nevertheless, being a highly professional organization and most of the trainees are from rural background with limited financial resources, the management took a decision to pay stipend during the period of training purely on humanitarian grounds and paid at the rate of Rs. 4,871 per month, per trainee, between April 2013 and October 2013, to 73 trainees. The list of trainees sponsored through several Industrial Training Institutes for the period from 2011 to October 2013 are at Annexure-D series. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that In-plant trainees were not employed as workers in the petitioner-factory and that stipend paid on humanitarian consideration cannot constitute wage falling within the definition of the said term under the Act or Scheme.

(3.) It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-authority without application of mind, without securing necessary reports and in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence, prima facie, over In-plant trainees being engaged as workmen in the petitioner-factory, issued summons Annexure-E for the petitioner to appear before him on 27.3.2013 and give evidence and produce all relevant records as indicated in the summons, on the premise, that the respondent has information and has reason to believe that there has been a failure to remit the provident fund dues in respect of In-plant trainees working in the establishment, as also, 'allied dues' on other allowances in respect of employees covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed therein during the period March 2001 to 2013 and failure to attend the inquiry, will be held in the matter under the provisions of the Act.