IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22536 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MAMANIAH COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM-691001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.22536/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 5.2.09. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 15.6.09 IN WPC.16366/09. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 7.9.09. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25.2.2010. P5 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEL. P6 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 11.1.11. P8 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DT 27.9.07. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22536 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P4 is an order passed by the petitioner exercising his power under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952, holding that the trainees in the first respondent establishment were regular employees who were liable to be covered under the Act. The period in relation to which the said order was passed is from May, 2009 to January, 2010 and the first respondent was held liable to remit an amount of `88,113/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal by Ext.P7 order. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. 3. According to the petitioner, the finding of the W.P.(C) No.22536/2011 : 2 : Tribunal that these persons were merely trainees outside the coverage of the Act is erroneous. A reading of Ext.P7, the order passed by the Tribunal, shows that as per the certified standing orders, the company could have appointed trainees. The Tribunal found that under Section 2f of the Act, a trainee is not an employee and that there was no material to show that these trainees were doing the work of the regular employees. It was in such circumstances, the Tribunal held that the persons appointed under the certified standing order are only trainees and that they were not doing the work of regular employees and hence cannot be treated as the employees of the Corporation. There is no reliable material to hold these factual findings arrived at by the Tribunal erroneous for any reason, warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/19/08