SARDA GUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels.

(2.) The petitioner Industrial Unit is aggrieved by the order Annex.11 dt. 27.12.2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Jodhpur and appellate order Annex.13 dt. 08.09.2011 passed by Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, Camp at Jaipur holding that the petitioner Unit is covered by the provisions of EPF Act, 1952 and since number of employees found at the time of survey were more than 20, it was covered by the provisions of the said Act and was liable to pay provident fund contribution in respect of such 20 workman.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Shah submitted that from the evidence produced before the authorities concerned, only 15 employees were regular employees of the petitioner Unit and remaining 5 persons were casual labours doing masonry work in the industrial unit and they could not fall within the definition of 'workman' for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner unit falls within the definition of 'establishment' as defined under Sect. 1(3)(a) of the said Act. He relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bikaner Cold Storage Company, Bikaner vs. Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Raj. in which the Full Bench of this Court held as under:-