VARGHESE Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the compound where an establishment called "Raja Industries" is situated there are two more establishments, "Patel Timber Industries" and "Regal Saw Mills". Previously there was one more establishment there, Malabar Timbers, but it stopped functioning in 1967-68. On March 2, 1968 the Provident Fund Inspector, pw. 2, visited the Raja Industries and then be found that it was not functioning as required by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. for short, the Act. Then he prosecuted the revision petitioners, who are the partners of the firm, "Raja Industries" for not making contributions towards the provident funds of it employees and not maintaining records and filing statements connected therewith and thereby violating the provisions of Para.36 (2) (a) and (b) and 38(1) and (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. There were four prosecutions and they related to four different periods from September, 1967 to June, 1968. In them the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, convicted the revision petitioners and each of them was sentenced in each case on each count to pay a fine of Rs. 51 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The convictions and sentences were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

(2.) According to the revision petitioners "Raja Industries" is not an establishment employing 20 persons or more so as to attract the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Act. S.1(3) of the Act shows that the provisions of the Act have application only to establishments which employ twenty or more persons. The word "employee" as defined in S.2(f) of the Act meant any person who is employed for wages in connection with the work of an establishment. Persons casually and not regularly employed for purposes other than the regular work of the establishment would not come under that category. For being considered an employee the work that a person employed does should be connected with the work of the establishment. If the work he does is extraneous to the work in the establishment he cannot be considered as an employee coming under the Act. In P. F. Inspector v. T. S. Hariharan AIR 1971 SC 1519 the Supreme Court in considering establishments employing twenty persons or more as contemplated by the Act said:

(3.) Although PW.2 could not give the details of the persons whom be found in "Raja Industries" when he visited it he said that they were more than twenty. But the evidence of the manager of the "Raja Industries", dw. 1, shows that some of them were persons who had no connection whatsoever with the work in the "Raja Industries" and that they were only casual labourers, engaged in unloading timber which was being transported to the "Raja Industries".