RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.8.1995 (Annexure -10) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur (respondent No, 2) holding that eight Canteen employees will be treated to be the employees of the petitioner -school and that benefit of Provident Fund be extended to one Grate Keeper, who was re -employed, after retirement.
(2.) THE petitioner 'scontention, inter alia, is that the petitioner -school and the Canteen, both are separate and independent bodies under 'Kerala Samajam ', which is a registered society. It has let out space to the contractor for running the Canteen. The School is in no way connected with the affairs of the canteen. The workers in the Canteen are under the direct control of the contractor who appoints and terminates them. The School does not know what records the said contractor is maintaining. There is no master -servant relationship between the Canteen employees and the School. The School is registered with the Provident Fund Department. Petitioner has also alleged mala fide against respondents No, 2 and 3. It is alleged that on 20.6.1993 Miss. Kamal Kaur daughter of Shri G.D. Singh, Enforcement Officer posted in the office of the then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mango, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) was admitted in Std. VIII -B in the School due to pressure of respondents No. 2 and 3, though she was not qualified. When respondent No. 3 inspected the school on 30.6.1993, 5.8.1993, 14.10.1993 and 3.2.1994, he did not find that the Canteen 'semployees were the employees of the School. After his daughter failed on 12.3.1994 and the petitioner did not accede to the request of respondents No. 2 and 3 regarding her result, the impugned action was taken.
(3.) MR . Agrawal further submitted that respondent No. 2 deliberately and wrongly recorded the submission on behalf of the School. On behalf of the School, it was never submitted that the said canteen is running in the premises of the School. It was a clear and specific case of the petitioner that the canteen is not run within the premises of the School. He referred to paragraph -27 of the writ petition and its reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. He further submitted that even the petition of respondent No. 4, dated 8.8.1995 (Annexure -9) supporting petitioner 'sstand was purposely ignored by respondent No, 2 while passing the impugned order. Thus he submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have acted in a mala fide and biased manner.;