B V RAO AND CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND OFFICER IN CHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of fact and law are involved, these two writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

(2.) At the outset, it would be necessary to give the brief facts of each case.

(3.) The petitioners are practising Chartered Accountants and Chartered Accountant Firms. The erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB) in or about 1985 entrusted the work relating to collection of revenues from its consumers by engaging the petitioners as Private Accounting Agencies. Even after incorporation of the APTRANSCO consequent to the enactment of A.P. Reforms Act, 1999, the same procedure has been followed by the Distribution Companies of the APTRANSCO and the petitioners herein have been continued with the Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited (APEPDCL). The APEPDCL through the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle, entered into periodical agreements with the petitioners entrusting the work relating to LT bi-monthly services i.e., collection of revenues from the consumers. Various duties and responsibilities relating to generation of outputs after spot billing and regular accounting were entrusted to the petitioners under the agreements. As per Part-A of the Agreement, the petitioners were required to process and generate reports such as Bills analysis, Demand abstract, Bill book abstract, Pre-printed receipts and Reports relating to demand analysis. Under the agreements, the petitioners are called Private Accounting Agencies (PAAs) and they are entitled for remuneration for the works executed at the rates specified in the agreement. It is stated that the writ petitioners are getting the said work executed through the Articled Clerks/Assistants engaged by them as per the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. While so, a compliant dated 4.5.2005 was said to have been made by one Dadi Venkata Appa Rao, the Divisional Secretary of APSEB Employees Union, Paderu, complaining that the workers engaged by the APEPDCL through the Chartered Accountant Firms allegedly on contract basis were not being extended the benefits under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'EPF Act'). In pursuance thereof, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam called upon the APEPDCL to enrol all such contract workers from the date of coverage of the establishment (APEPDCL) or from the date of their employment with the Chartered Accountant Firms whichever is applicable. The APEPDCL took a stand that its arrangement with the professional Chartered Accountant firms was only for utilization of professional consultancy services in the areas of billing, and book keeping and for rendering suitable professional services for the benefit of its consumers and therefore the personnel engaged by the professional Chartered Accountants would not be employees of APEPDCL within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. Accordingly APEPDCL refused to enrol the contract workers engaged by the Chartered Accountant Firms/PAAs.