MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED HARIHAR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER INKARNATAKA BANGALORE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Engineering Company. It has established a club by name 'my Club' having a 'guest House' and a 'garden'. The controversy in this writ petition is whether the employees of this Establishment can be treated as employees of the petitioner-company and be covered by Employees' Provident fund Act. By notice Annexure-A, dated 4-1-1997 the respondent called upon the petitioner to cover these employees also under the Employees' Provident Fund Act and to make contribution. Annexure-B is the reply furnished by the petitioner. It is stated therein that the club is not exclusively for the benefit of the employees of the company and the public may also utilise the facilities available. After considering the respective contentions by the impugned order the respondent held that the employees of My Club, Guest House and Garden are the employees of the petitioner and are covered by the Employees' Provident Fund act and the petitioner is liable to make contribution. This order is impugned herein.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Gururajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner was that the Club, Guest House etc. , are not exclusively for the use of the employees but the public are allowed to use the facilities, because it is not meant exclusively for the use of the employees of the petitioner. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Royal talkies, Hyderabad and Others v Employees' State Insurance corporation and Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India)Limited v Subhash Chandra Bose and Others and 1984 FJR 543. These cases arise out of the interpretation of E. S. I. Act. The supreme Court after considering the respective contentions came to the conclusion that the employees employed by the petitioner therein are employed for the purpose of establishment and therefore come within the ambit of the definition of the Act. Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act defines an employee in the following manner :