C.W.P.No.9881 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9881 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.05.2010 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ....Petitioner(s) vs. M/s Triton Corporation Limited and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide which the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 stands allowed, thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 25.7.2007 under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 1952 Act) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the legal position. The Tribunal had misread the definition of ‘employee’ as contained in` Section 2-F of the 1952 Act. As per the contention of the respondent, they engaged trainees/apprentices and therefore, they were not liable to deduct and deposit the provident fund dues qua them. The provisions of the Act being C.W.P.No.9881 of 2010 -2- a piece of beneficial welfare legislation, the restricted definition as given by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) deserves to be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. As per the stand of the respondent-management, the trainees and the employees of the transporters who were engaged by it were not its employees as they would not fall within the definition of ‘employee’ as contained in Section 2-F of the 1952 Act. An agreement was entered into between respondent No.1 and the transporters, according to which respondent No.1 was paying higher rates on kilometer basis to the transporters. No salary is being paid to the employees of the transporters and only transport charges were being paid on hire basis as per agreement. This aspect could not be controverted by the counsel for the petitioner. As per clause (f) of Section 2 of the 1952 Act, the apprentices engaged under the Apprentice Act or under the Certified Standing Orders, were not the employees and therefore, the persons who were undergoing training as apprentices, were not under any obligation to work in the company nor was the company liable to pay after completion of the training and thus, under such circumstances, respondent-management cannot be said to be liable to pay the provident fund to them. As regards the other transporters, since they were being paid on higher rates on kilometer basis as per the agreement, the employees engaged by the transporters cannot be said to be the employees of the respondent-management which would make them liable to pay provident fund contributions for them. In view of the above, impugned order dated 26.11.2009 C.W.P.No.9881 of 2010 -3- (Annexure P-4) passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is in accordance and is, therefore, upheld. There being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. May 26, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE