AJANTHA ELECTRICALS Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a contractor executing some electrical works for the 1st respondent-Airport Authority of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts. P14 and P16 orders which are the orders of the original authority and the appellate authority under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act holding that the petitioner is an establishment liable to be covered under the Act. The petitioner challenges the same on two grounds. The first is that since the 1st respondent-authority is an establishment exempted from the purview of Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner who is executing works in an exempted establishment is also not liable to be covered under the Act. The second contention is that since the petitioner is not employing the required number of workers for coverage under the Act, the orders of the lower authorities holding that the petitioner's establishment is liable to be covered under the Act is unsustainable.

(2.) I am of opinion that these contentions need not be considered at all in this case because as revealed from the impugned orders, the petitioner had earlier suffered an order under Section 7A of the Act holding that the petitioner is liable to be covered under the Act. That order was challenged under the erstwhile Section 19A of the Act, which was later repealed by amendment of the Act as a consequence of which, that petition was forwarded to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, who also dismissed the petition. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge those orders in any proceedings known to law. Therefore, the question of coverage of the petitioner under the Act has already become final and he cannot now rake up the same again in fresh proceedings under Section 7A. That being so, even without going into the contentions raised in this original petition, the original petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The 1st respondent-authority is exempted from the provisions of the Act only because the employees of the 1st respondent are getting social insurance benefits equivalent to the benefits under the Provident Funds Act under their own rules. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner's employees have any kind of such social insurance by way of provident fund or otherwise. That being so, even though the 1st respondent is exempted from the purview of the Act, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of that exemption in so far as its employees are not enjoying any of the benefits that are being enjoyed by the employees of the 1st respondent similar to the benefits provided under the Act.