IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 2410 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.25639/1998 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SMT.T.N. GIRIJA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: BRISTO FOODS PVT. LTD., CRYPTOMS HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN 36 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATHAN PANICKER. BY AD. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2410 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge quashing Ext. P5 order issued by the appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode. 2. In Ext.P5 order, the Commissioner took the view that 30 apprentices engaged by the respondent-Company were liable to be brought within the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent-Company contended that these apprentices were not liable to be covered under Act and the Scheme, going by the clauses contained in the Standing Orders. The learned single Judge upheld the above contention and quashed Exts.P5 order issued by the appellant Commissioner. 3. It is beyond controversy that the respondent Company enjoyed the benefit of infancy protection till September 22, 1997. It is also not in dispute that the standing orders of the Company were got certified with effect from October 1, 1997. According to the appellant, so WA.2410/2008. : 2 : long as the apprentices were on the rolls of the Company they were liable to be brought within the purview of the Act and the Scheme, especially since the infancy protection was taken away in September 1997. 4. However, the learned single Judge, relying on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.P.F.Commissioner v. C.A & C.M. & P. Co.op. Ltd. (2006 (1) LLJ 995), in which an identical issue was considered, took the view that going by the provisions contained in Section 12A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the stand taken by the appellant-Commissioner could not be sustained. 5. Section 12A of the Act postulates that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 to 12 of the Act, for the period commencing on the date on which the Act became applicable to an industrial establishment and ending with the date on which the Standing Orders, as finally certified under the Act, came into operation under Section 7 in that establishment, the employee shall be deemed to be adopted in that establishment. WA.2410/2008. : 3 : 6. It is true that the Standing Orders of the respondent-Company were got certified only with effect from October 1, 1997 . However, till September 22, 1997, the model Standing Orders governed the field. Moreover, respondent-Company had a specific case that the Standing Orders were sent for certification on September 1, 1997 itself. In any view of the matter, even assuming the infancy period of the Company got expired on September 22, 1997, model Standing Orders will come to the rescue of the respondent-Company. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.