M ABDUL SAMAD SAHIB SONS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 17.02.1998 in No.S-35011/13(14) 78/452. By the impugned order, the first respondent has disposed of the petitioner's application which was filed originally under Section 19A of the E.P.F.Act before the Central Government. The said application was filed on 8.12.1977. The petitioner is a Beedi manufacturer. The second respondent issued a notice dated 2.3.1977 by allotting a code number in order to cover the employees of the petitioner under the provisions of the E.P.F. Act. The second respondent sought for such coverage from 31.5.1977. In the application filed under Section 19-A of the E.P.F. Act, the petitioner contended that it does not employ the required number of employees in its establishment for the purpose of coverage under the Act and that the rolling of Beedis was being carried out through independent contractors who are employers by themselves and therefore the employees employed through those contractors cannot be construed as employees of the petitioner in order to seek coverage under the Act.

(2.) The first respondent Tribunal came to be constituted under Section 7-D of the E.P.F. Act and started functioning with effect from 1.7.1997. Consequent upon the constitution of the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of the Act, the application filed under Section 19A got transferred to the file of the first respondent and that is how the first respondent treated the petitioner's application as an appeal and disposed of the same by the impugned order dated 17.2.1998.

(3.) Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was on the premise that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (P.M. PATEL & SONS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) reported in 1986 -I L.L.J. 88, a distinction has been shown in respect of certain independent contractors who treat the workers as their own employees and the employees of such contractors cannot be brought within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the Act and in the case of the petitioner also, the different contractors with whom the petitioner has entered into various agreements were all of such type of Contractors referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in respect of the employees of such contractors, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. In support of the above said submission, reliance was placed upon paragraph 3 of the above referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is to the following effect: