BENGAL INGOT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
LAWS(CAL)-1995-1-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 20,1995

BENGAL INGOT COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PURI URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK VS. MADHUSUDAN SAHU [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TIN PRINTERS PVT LTD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2000-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
S G TIN PRINTERS PRIVATE LTD VS. R P F COMMISSIONER [LAWS(CAL)-2000-4-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J - (1.)This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated June 30, 1989 passed by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Civil Order No. 7297 (W) of 1989 rejecting the writ application. The Writ petition was filed by the petitioner company challenging the order, dated May 26, 1989 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, respectively under Section 71 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 demanding the liability of the petitioner Company in respect of the Provident Fund dues of respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh who was held to be an employee of the petitioner company.
(2.)The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh as a Part time Medical Officer of the appellant company will be termed as an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(3.)It is the case of the appellant-company that the respondent No. 2 was appointed to render medical services and that the said contract under which the employment was made was a contract for services and not for service. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 2 is a Private Doctor and cannot claim employment to the establishment and he has only rendered his services to the workmen of the appellant-company. In this connection a reference was made by the appellant to the provisions of Section 2(f) of the said Act. Section 2(f) of the said Act provides as hereunder: employee' means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of (an establishment) and employer (and includes any person.... (1) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (2) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment)".
;


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