SP FORT HOSPITAL Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute pertains to petitioner's liability to pay contribution of provident fund in respect of 8 employees. While the case of the first respondent is that all these 8 persons found to be employed during inspection by the Enforcement Officer are employees to be covered under the Employees provident Fund scheme, the case of the petitioner is that those persons were trainees. However, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in another writ Petition, the first respondent reconsidered the matter vide Ext. P10 and the original order was again reaffirmed. Strangely first respondent has not bothered to consider whether these trainees continued in service in 2006 because the claim of their temporary employment as trainees was in the year 2000. Petitioner confirms that four of them continued in service and the balance are not in service. I do not think there is any need to consider petitioner's liability for payment of contribution to trainees who have left service. However, whoever continued in service were liable to be covered. First respondent has no case that any subsequent inspection was carried out after the original inspection based on which Ext. P1 was issued.

(2.) IN the circumstances, W. P. is disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish details of trainees who left the service after the impugned order was passed and the date of their leaving service for modifying the impugned order. First respondent is directed to issue fresh orders after inspection if necessary and after enquiry about the details furnished by the petitioner. Fresh orders will be issued in modification of the impugned order by the first respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will furnish details as above within two weeks from now, along with a copy of this judgement. Issue photocopy tomorrow itself.