RASTOGI BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of the case as set up in short compass by the parties, is that one Sri S. L. Tewari, Provident Fund Inspector, visited the firm of M/s. Rastogi Brothers. 10 Aminabad Park. Lucknow. on 28.4.78. He found that the establishment had employed more than 20 persons as on 30.4.78. The said establishment was engaged in stationery products and had completed five years from the date it was set-up. The said Inspector recommended for applicability of the provision^ of the Employees' Provident Fund (and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). A list of 25 employees, working in the establishment as on 30.4.78 was enclosed with the enquiry report by the said Inspector.

(2.) On receipt of the enquiry report of the Inspector, the establishment was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. U. P., that the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder was applicable to the establishment with effect from 30.4.78 provisionally, as the establishment which is engaged in stationery products, on completion of five years from the date it was set up. had employed more than 20 persons as on 30.4.78. M/s. Rastogi Brothers submitted a reply to the notice wherein it was contended that the Inspector had wrongly informed that the establishment had employed 20 or more than 20 persons, since its inception the establishment had never employed 20 persons on any date. The total strength of the employees in the establishment never exceeded beyond 15. On the request of the petitioners, they were provided hearing and the establishment produced the cash books, ledger and the attendance registers showing 12-13 persons as employees. Regarding the employees engaged by the contractors, the petitioner explained thai there was no contractor. Only the binding, ruling and printing, etc. was got done by the petitioner through others, who cannot be treated as their contractors.

(3.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P. after considering the representation of the petitioners and perusing other documentary evidence on record. came to the conclusion that the work of ruling and binding was got done by the petitioners from other parties apart from M/s. Mohammad Haider and Abrar Husain although M/s. Mohammad Haider and Abrar Husain also worked for other parties but by and large, they worked for the establishment. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P. further took Into consideration the fact that M/s. India Ruling House had done the work of establishment for a total sum of Rs. 34.215.03 during the year 1978-79 whereas the work of other 32 parties for a total value of Rs. 10,459.55 during the same period. Similarly. M/s. Chaudharl Book Binder during the same period did the work of the establishment of a total value of Rs. 1,06,732.63 as against the work done by him of other 32 parties was of the value of 13.458.25 only. This coupled with the fact that M/s. Mohammad Haider and Abrar Husain were working within the same premises in which the establishment of the petitioner was functioning proved that the aforesaid contractors were the contractors of the establishment and the persons employed by the two contractors would be the employees of the establishment within the meaning of this Act. The contractors were not registered as a separate establishment under the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. when the Inspector visited the establishment. They got themselves registered only on 8.9.78. The establishment, having admittedly more than 20 employees after including the persons employed by those contractors, is covered under the provisions of the Act with effect from 30.4.78.