REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MANGLORE Vs. CENTRAL AERCANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO OP LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on January 30,2006

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL AERCANUT AND COCA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OP. LTD. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

H RAMAPPA VS. GENERAL MANAGER YELLMMA COTTON WOOLLEN AND SILK MILLS [LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
N E P C TEXTILES LTD VS. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-370] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL PANDIAN VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC ENGG AND TECH [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
R JAYARAMAN VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC ENGG AND TECH [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-237] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAMNARAYAN MILLS LTD VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-246] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED VS. CAPT RAMAN DOULAGAR [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS MALLIAH MEMORIAL THEATRE CRAFTS TRUST REGD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2010-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
FRONTIER LIFELINE PVT LTD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS. REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD VS. JOHN [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-188] [REFERRED TO]
C C CHOKSHI & CO & 1 VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - II & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-136] [REFERRED TO]
MRF LTD VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KER)-2015-3-337] [REFERRED TO]
SOLAR ALTERNATIVES AND ASSOCIATED PROGRAMMES VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
SEVAYAN MEDICAL VS. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
GORWARE ELECTRONICS LTD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI JUTE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION [LAWS(CAL)-2011-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
M R F LTD ERIPAKKAM VILLAGE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-140] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAMNARAYAN MILLS LTD. VS. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-228] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS MALLIAH MEMORIAL THEATRE CRAFTS TRUST (RE VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-6-111] [REFERRED]
SIVAGIRI SREE NARAYANA MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHER [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-474] [REFERRED TO]
SIVAGIRI SREE NARAYANA MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHER [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-474] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL PANKAJ VS. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-815] [REFERRED TO]
GEHANA GOLD PALACE (P) LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCOPE MINAR [LAWS(KER)-2019-9-96] [REFERRED TO]
IREL (INDIA) LIMITED VS. P. N. RAGHAVA PANICKER [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. TIDC INDIA, (UNIT OF TUBE INVESTMENTS INDIA LTD ), AMBATTUR, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-917] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench held that 45 persons who were selected as trainees were not covered by Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the Act) as they cannot be called as "employees" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
(2.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The respondent invited applications from the intending applicants for undergoing training at its Chocolate Factory, Puttur on a stipend of Rs.600/- per month which may be increased to Rs.800/- per month after six months. It was also provided that the successful candidates may be considered for regular posting in the factory. By its resolution dated 21-1-1990 after interviewing 270 applicants, 45 persons were selected. By a combined order dated 3-2-1990, Managing Director notified the 45 persons who were selected. It was clearly indicated therein that the training in the factory does not entitle any trainee to claim right of appointment after completion of training period. It was also stipulated that if any trainee leaves the factory within one year, he was required to refund the amount received by him as stipend. Notice was issued by the appellant purportedly under Section 7-A of the Act in respect of the said 45 trainees. By order dated 15-5-1991 the appellant held that the trainees were employees for the purpose of the Act and the respondent is liable to pay the quantified amount.
(3.)Writ application was filed by the respondent questioning the determination. A learned single Judge with reference to various provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short Standing Orders Act) and The Apprentices Act, 1961 (in short the Apprentices Act) held that the demand was unsustainable. A writ appeal was filed before the Division Bench which as noticed above dismissed the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.