Case: The Pachora Peoples' Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organization

3. The submissions of Shri A.A.Shelke h/f P.D.Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner are summarized as follows:a. The petitioner is a Co. Operative Bank registered under the provisions of Thes Act, 1960 and the rules framed there under.b. The petitioner is covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.c. The business of the petitioner Bank increased every passing day and became a renowned Bank in the Jalgaon District.d. The Enforcement Officer working under the A.P.F.C. submitted his report dated 5.3.2010 and the A.P.F.C. initiated an inquiry under section 7A with regard to non payment / deposition of Provident Fund subscription in connection with the Pigmy Deposit Collectors.e. The petitioner challenged the 7A enquiry by filing W.P.No. 8568/2009 before the Bombay High Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16.12.2009.f. The petitioner had contended before the A.P.F.C. that the Pigmy Deposit Collectors were not covered by the definition of.i. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal A.T.A. 727(9) of 2010 before the respondent at New Delhi.j. Under orders of the respondent dated 9.12.2010, the petitioner deposited 40% of the assessed amount.k. All the points / grounds raised and agitated before the A.P.F.C. were canvassed before the respondent Tribunal.l. By the impugned order dated 20.5.2011, respondent Tribunal upheld the findings of the A.P.F.C. and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.m. The grounds for challenge and points urged before both the Authorities are set out by the petitioner in this petition.n. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.

Court's reasoning:
7. We quite appreciate that the Pigmy Deposit Collectors, not only have to make regular visits to small depositors like traders, housewives, students,persons etc., but these visits are prompted owing to the requirement of collecting their deposits. This obviously is in tune with and traceable to the business of the petitioner bank. This is a manual nature of work and the collections have to be made by going from places to places and visiting persons to persons. Various forms have to be filled in, accounts, registers and passbooks are required to be maintained and updated on day to day basis and the said amounts received have to be deposited with the petitioner bank. The commission to be paid to the said collectors is linked with the quantum of the collection. This is ultimately traceable to the business of the bank and is connected with the generation of funds for the bank.8. The definition ofu/s 2(rr) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in our opinion and on the basis of the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court , squarely covers such Pigmy Deposit Collectors. Needless to state, these collectors are answerable and accountable to the petitioner bank. In the event, the Bank is not satisfied with the performance of any such collector, it entitles the Bank to delete such collector from its list and allot no work to him.9. As such, in our opinion, though the degree of supervision, control and direction may differ from what is commonly emanating from the public and private industrial sector, we intend to give a wider meaning to the principle of EmployerEmployee in connection with such Pigmy Deposit collectors.10. In such a situation, it is immaterial as regards the work hours / duty hours allotted to such collectors. In fact, their nature of duties and job profile is more arduous as has been held in the Indian Bank Associations Case (supra), it would be impossible to fix working hours for such collectors as their nature of work leaves them at liberty to regulate their own hours of work. By no stretch of imagination, can they therefore be held to be not covered by the principle of EmployerEmployee.11. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the said issue of Pigmy Deposit Collectors is no longerAs such, we are not required to adopt a different view at the instance of the petitioner. Since the Law on this point is now well settled, the petition fails and deserves to be dismissed.