DSOI Vs. EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 10, 2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.164(4)2002 filed by the petitioner herein whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner, Defence Services Officers' Institute, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi has been established with a view to provide social and recreational facilities to the officers of the Defence Services both serving and retired and their families in the union territory of Delhi and further for combined officers mess facilities to them. In the year 1969, although not covered under the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act in short) but out of desire to extend the benefit of the provident fund to its employees sought voluntary coverage of the Act for its permanent employees. The petitioner has been engaging casual labours for working with it from time to time.

(3.) In the year 2000 the respondent pursuant to a visit by the Enforcement Officer issued a letter dated October 12, 2000 to the petitioner for compliance of the provisions of the Act with regard to 156 casual employees from October, 1994. It was the stand of the petitioner in response to the letter dated October 12, 2000 of the respondent that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of industry and the word 'employee' as defined in the Act would not include casual labour. The proceedings were also initiated under Section 7-A of the Act vide notice dated May 17, 2001. The petitioner contested those proceedings and had taken a similar stand as has been taken by it in response to letter dated October 12, 2000 of the respondent inasmuch as the establishment does not fall within the provisions of Section 1(3)(a) or 1(3)(b) of the Act. The petitioner had also stated that the voluntary coverage in the year 1969 is only with respect to its permanent employees and all other categories were excluded for the purpose. The proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act culminated in order dated February 25, 2002 which it appears was decided without calling for comments from the department or without summoning official records of the respondent department.