SUBROS LTD Vs. R P F C MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None is present on behalf of the respondent, although the list has been revised. Raising a short controversy, the present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.1996 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner holding that the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act would also apply to the petitioner's unit as the petitioner has engaged "Trainees" who would also be included within the definition of 'employee' under the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said controversy stands set at rest by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Central Aercanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Cooperative Ltd, 2006 108 FLR 805 . He further submits that the aforesaid decision has been followed by a learned Single judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Gorware Electronics Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another, 2010 126 FLR 921 .

(3.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed the impugned order on the basis that the definition of 'employee' under the Act which was amended with effect from 1.8.1988 includes in its ambit the word 'apprentice' other than those apprentices which have been appointed under the Apprenticeship Act 1961.