C.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) In this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned single Judge, the short question that calls for determination is whether the four persons whose names are mentioned below and whose services had been engaged by the Railway Employees Co-operative Banking Society Limited (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Society) come within the definition of the term 'employee' as contained in Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):- 1. Shri Kanhaiya Lai, Sweeper, 2. Shri Nand Kishore, Night-Watchman, 3. Smt. Shakuntala, Water-woman, 4. Shri Ram Bharose, Gardner.
(2.) It appears that a dispute arose be-tween the Society and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for Rajasthan as to whether the Act can be applied to the Society on the ground that it employs 50 persons. We may straightway observe that if any one of the four persons about whom the dispute has arisen cannot be considered as an 'employee' a defined in the Act, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the* Society. Even the Society admits that there are 46 employees employed by it but its contention is that these four persons have been engaged by it casually, and that too not in connection with the work of the establishment and, therefore, they cannot be considered as employees. It may be pointed out, here, that the Legal Advisor to the Central Government by his order dated January 11, 1977, held the above mentioned four persons as employees, and, thereby dismissed the representation made by the Society. Consequently, the Society filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, who concurred in the view taken by the Legal Advisor,,
(3.) Now, before we proceed to examine the cases of each of the above mentioned four persons, it would be proper to reproduce the definition of the word 'employee' contained in Section 2 (f) of the Act:- "2 (f) '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 who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person employed by or through a contractor or in connection with the work of the establishment." (1) Kanhaiya Lal is a whole-time Sweeper employed by the Railway. He works on part-time basis at the premises of the Society for cleaning the urinals/ lavatories for which he is paid Rs. 15/-, per mensem by the Society. He comes twice or three times in a week for doing the job. Thus, it is clear that he is not a whole-time employee but only a part-time worker, and his work is to clean the lavatories. (2) Nand Kishore is a night-watchman. Of course, he is not in the exclusive employment of the Society as he keeps a watch at night on a number of other shops also, situated in the same locality. He is paid Rs. 4/- per day. Thus, it is clear that he is also not in the exclusive employment of the Society. (3) Smt. Shakuntala Devi has been employed by the Society for serving water fco the employees of the Society during office hours. There is nothing on the record to show whether she serves anywhere else and thus is a part-time employee and, therefore, she may be taken to be in the exclusive employment of the Society. (4) Shri Ram Bharose is a Gardner. He works elsewhere also and thus he is a part-time worker. He does not come for doing his job daily, but is said to be attending the Society's premises ten days in a month to look after the garden. Thus, it is clear that he is also a part-time worker and not in the exclusive employment of the Society.;