BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OFINDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE this batch of writ petitions involve the question of applicability of the P.F. Act/Scheme on the casual labour/temporary/peripatetic workers, the procedure evolved and the proceedings initiated under Section 7A for computation of dues, with regard to casual labour/temporary/peripatetic workers, the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. FACTS: W.P.(C) 3588/2002

(2.) IN this writ petition the petitioners have in substance prayed for a direction against the respondents not to enforce the provisions of para No.26(2) of the Provident Fund Scheme ('Scheme' in short) insofar as temporary and/or casual site workers engaged in the multi - tire system in the petitioners' business and by further declaring that such workers are not required to become members of the Provident Fund Act ('Act' in short) or the Scheme. Since the vires of the said provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of J.P.Tobacco Products vs. Union of India 1996 (1) LLJ 822, the only relief which the petitioners in this writ petition have pressed for is the prayer in para No.e and f, which are reproduced as under:

(3.) FROM the above it is noted that the Act was made applicable to every workman from the date of joining as against continuous 3 months service stipulated in erstwhile para 26(2) of the Scheme. The petitioner No.1 association invoked the provisions of 19(A) of the Act to seek clarification regarding giving effect to the provisions of the Act to casual/temporary workers/peripatetic workers employed on work sites of the petitioners' establishment. The question raised before the authority was whether the workers employed at the work sites of the establishment engaged in the building and construction industry are not the employees as defined in Section 2 of the Act because (i) they cannot be termed as employees of the establishment; (ii) they are temporary/casual workers.