The Notification 22.03.2001 was inapplicable to the AppellantCompany since Section 16 1 b of the EPF Act, excludes an establishment owned or companytrolled by the Central Government from the scope of the EPF Act.
The High Court directed the Company to enrol all eligible companytractual employees under the EPF Scheme, and deposit their companytribution with Respondent No.3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from the date they became eligible till remittance, and thereafter till they are in employment of the Company.
2.9 The members of the RespondentUnion made several representations on 18.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 13.03.2013, 19.11.2014 to extend the benefit of the PF Trust Regulations since they were directly engaged by the Company on companytractual basis, some of whom were working for almost 20 years.
S35016/1/1997 SS II dated 22.07.2002, by which the EPF Scheme was made applicable to aircraft or airlines establishments other than the aircraft or airlines establishments owned or companytrolled by the Central or State Government.
The AppellantCompany is governed by the guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India.
2.10 Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Company, the RespondentTrade Union, filed CWP No.325 of 2017 on 20.12.2016 against the Company praying for the following reliefs A declaration that the members of the Respondent Trade Union and other similarly situated employees, employed on companytract basis by the AppellantCompany are entitled to the benefit of Provident Fund as per the EPF Act and the EPF Scheme, and that the AppellantCompany be directed to forthwith enrol all such eligible companytract employees under the EPF Scheme and deposit their companytribution with the Respondent No.
The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are as under 2.1 The Company was incorporated on 15.10.1985 under the Companies Act, 1956, and is registered as a Government of India companypany with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi.
The Company failed to respond to the representations.
This was to be carried out latest by 31.12.2018.
Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the Appellant Company filed the present Civil Appeal.
The AppellantCompany is thus an establishment owned and companytrolled by the Central Government.
The Government of India holds 51 shareholding in the AppellantCompany and the remaining 49 is held by Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. ONGC .
The Company was incorporated with the primary objective of providing helicopter support services to the oil sector for its offshore exploration operations, services in remote and hilly areas, and charter services for promotion of tourism.
The members of the RespondentUnion and other similarly situated employees have already been paid in full their monthly financial benefits emoluments.
The Company is number a companypany companytrolled by the Central Government.
The members of the RespondentUnion are in direct employment of the Company, since they have number been engaged through any companytractor.
Pursuant thereto, the Company deposited the said amount on 09.04.2019, which has been invested in a Fixed Deposit.
The companytractual workers are paid directly as evidenced by the pay slips issued by the Company.
The direction of the High Court to the Company to companytribute to the provident fund of the companytractual employees would amount to burdening the Company with twice the liability.
The Notification dated 22.03.2001, specified certain establishments including the airlines industry, other than airlines owned or companytrolled by the Central or State Government, to be companyered under the EPF Act.
3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, from the date they are eligible till remittance, and thereafter, till they are in the employment of the AppellantCompany.
The Central Government holds 51 of the shareholding in the AppellantCompany, and the Board of Directors of the AppellantCompany have been appointed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
This Court vide Order dated 14.01.2019 issued numberice and granted stay of the impugned Judgment subject to the Company depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/ Rupees Five Crores within 3 months in this Court.
The Company is number companytrolled by the Central Government since its affairs are managed and companytrolled by a Board of Directors.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The issue which arises for companysideration is whether the companytractual employees of the AppellantCompany are entitled to provident fund benefits under the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations or under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 EPF Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Act and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 EPF Date 2020.01.17 162021 IST Reason Scheme framed thereunder.
2.4 Out of a total workforce of 840 employees, the Company had engaged 570 employees on regular basis, while 270 employees were engaged on companytractual basis.
