ANTI MALERIA WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, K. SATYANARAYANA Vs. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR (PERSONAL) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 11.05.2005, passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No.484(1) of 2000 reversing the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Viakhapatnam, dated 19.09.2000, is challenged before this court.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners, who are workers of the Anti Malaria Workers Welfare Association (for brevity, Association ), have been engaged in various Anti Malarial activities in relation to Visakhapanam Steel Plant, first respondent. Petitioner made an application before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, Visakhapatnam, second respondent, seeking to cover the members of the Association for the benefits of various schemes under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short, the Act ) as they were not being covered as employees of the first respondent Company. The second respondent after taking into consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that though the members of the Association were being paid their wages through the District Malaria Officer, they were, in fact, indirectly in employment of the first respondent Company and thus the first respondent Company is liable to cover the members of the Association under the Act and are required to make contributions to the Provident Fund Schemes. The order dated 19.09.2000 was challenged by the first respondent company before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sec. 7D of the Act. The Tribunal on consideration of the material placed before it and on analysis of the scheme under which the first respondent had contributed money towards Anti Malarial schemes found that the members of the petitioners were not employed by the first respondent company and the mere contributions which were made to the scheme that is being carried out by the District Malaria eradication, by itself does not create any employer employee relationship between the members of the Association and the first respondent company and thus the order of the Regional Joint Commissioner is erroneous. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the persons engaged in the Anti Malarial activities are indirectly engaged by the first respondent company and the appellate authority erred in appreciating the true scope and intent of Sections 2(e), 2(f) and that of Sec. 3 of the Act. Learned counsel would also submit that the District Administration is required to submit various details with respect to the persons engaged in carrying out the anti malarial activities to the first respondent company and thus the first respondent company wields control over the persons engaged through the District Malaria Officer. Learned counsel would further submit that the finding of the appellate authority that the persons engaged in the activities are not employed by the first respondent company is perverse and the said conclusion was arrived at merely on account of there being no obligation on the first respondent company to contribute to the Anti Malarial activity. Even there being no obligation, once as a matter of fact if the amounts are being contributed, the said factum of contribution would create the employer and employee relationship and thus the order of the appellate authority suffers from error apparent in appreciating the facts.