IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935

WP(C).No. 9419 of 2011 (B)

-------------------------------------

PETITIONER:
-------------------

MALABAR BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LIMITED,

G.B.ROAD, PALGHAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR AMJAD HUSSAIN.T.P.

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.P.GOPINATH

RESPONDENTS:
------------------------

1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, CORE II,
4TH FLOOR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110 092.

2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
P.B.NO.1806, POST ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT-673 006.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.

 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-
2014, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 9753 OF 2011 AND WP(C) NO.19479 OF 2011, THE
COURT ON

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9419 of 2011 (B)

-------------------------------------

APPENDIX

---------------

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

--------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE
CERTIFYING OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER OF THE

COMPANY DATED 27.02.2007.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 04.12.2007 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2008 PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION, ATA.NO.486(7) 2008,

DATED 23.06.2008, (WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES).

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE IN ATA.NO.486 (7) 2008,
DATED 18.01.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2011 IN ATA.NO.486(7)

2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ESI COURT, PALAKKAD
IN I.C.NO.76/2007 DATED 20.05.2010.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

-----------------------------------------

EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA COVERAGE SIGNED AND

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

--------------------

W.P.(C).Nos. 9419, 9753 & 19479 of 2011

----------------

Dated 10th March, 2014

------------------------

JUDGMENT

The issue raised in all these writ petitions is whether the trainees
appointed under a certified standing orders so certified under the Industrial Employees
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, (for short "Standing Orders Act") can be covered under the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "EPF
Act").

2. The employers, in all the above writ petitions, are Private Limited Companies
engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of jewellery. The determination
orders under Section 7A of the EPF Act determining contributions to be payable on
behalf of the trainees also were challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. Organization
assails the Tribunal's orders which set aside the determination order of the
authorized Officer of the Organization. In the other two writ petitions, the
determination orders were upheld by the Tribunal and the employers are before
this Court challenging such orders of the Tribunal confirming the order of the
Organization.
 3. In fact, the determination order in W.P. (C).19479/2011 has extracted the
definition of "Industrial Establishment" under the Standing Orders Act and the
Payment of Wages Act, 1946 to find that the petitioners who are the employers herein,
would not be covered under the definition in either of the enactments.
Admittedly, the employers herein have submitted standing Orders under the Standing
Orders Act, before the Certifying Officer and obtained certification under the
Act. The employers had also engaged trainees as permissible under the certified
Standing Orders; who are now sought to be covered under the EPF Act. The definition of
"Employee" under the EPF Act, being clause (f) of Section 2, clearly exempts apprentice
who has been appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961 or under the Standing
Orders of the Establishment. A trainee appointed under the certified Standing
Orders, hence, would be exempted from the purview of the EPF Act.

4. A contention is raised by the Provident Fund Organization with respect to the

employers/assessee herein being termed "Industrial Establishment" as per the
Standing Orders Act or Payment of Wages Act. Section 2(e) of the Standing Orders Act
defines "Industrial Establishment" inter alia as an Industrial Establishment as
defined in clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act. Sub-clause (f) of
clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, includes "workshop or other
Establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view
to their use, transport or sale". Hence the Private Limited Companies herein, who
manufacture jewellery and have a workshop for such manufacture wherein ornaments
are manufactured for the purpose of sale, definitely would be an Industrial or other
Establishments as defined under the Payment of Wages Act and hence, would fall
within the ambit of the Standing Orders Act.

5. In the circumstances of the petitioners having certified Standing Orders it has to

be held that the trainees appointed by the employers are not covered under
the EPF Act. On the teeth of such finding, the order of the Tribunal in
W.P.(C).19479/2011 is upheld and the writ petition stands dismissed. The
determination orders of the Tribunal, confirming the determination orders of the
authorized Officer of the Organization in W.P.(C) s.9419/2011 and 9753/2011 stand
set aside and the writ petitions would hence, stand allowed.

Parties are left to suffer their respective

costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,

Judge