15,97,087/ was assessed towards Provident Fund dues of the Respondent Company for the period from November, 1979 to February, 1991.
On 30.11.1992, Appellant No.
1 Officer InCharge, SubRegional Provident Fund Office, issued a Show Cause Notice to the Respondent Company calling upon it to pay the Provident Fund companytributions for the women workers.
Hence, the Respondent Company did number exercise any supervisory companytrol over the women workers.
to be made into garments at their own homes.
1, and companytended that the women workers who were fabricating garments for the Respondent Company, were number their employees, and hence number companyered by Section 2 f of the EPF Act.
1 issued summons to the Respondent Company for personal hearing under Section 7A of the EPF Act.
The Respondent Company engaged women workers who were provided with cut fabric, thread, buttons, etc.
1615 of 1993 by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
1 vide Order dated 19.04.1993 held that the women workers engaged for stitching garments were companyered by the definition of employee under Section 2 f of the EPF Act.
The sewing machines used by the women workers were owned by them, and number provided by the Respondent Company.
The Respondent Company challenged the aforesaid Order by filing W.P. No.
It was companyered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act with effect from 01.01.1979.
The Provident Fund Officer Appellant No.
If a worker failed to stitch a garment as per the instructions, the appellants rejected the work, and asked the worker to restitch the garment.
workers who were provided with the cloth, and were instructed by the appellants how to stitch it.
The workers were paid on piecerate basis.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Provident Fund Office.
1615 of 1993 before the Bombay High Court.
Hence, the Respondent Company 1 1986 1 SCC 32.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench vide Final Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2012 allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Company, and set aside the Order dated 19.04.1993 passed by the Appellant No.
The main objective of the Respondent Company, as per its Memorandum of Association, was to encourage, promote, develop, setup or cause to be setup a readymade garments industry in the Marathwada Region, with a view to provide gainful employment to people possessing skills in stitching, tailoring, and allied activities, especially to women from the economically weaker sections of the Society.
Therefore, even though wages were paid to those women workers, the Respondent Company was number liable to pay Provident Fund companytribution in respect of them.
The Respondent Company is a subsidiary of the Marathwada Development Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra.
An amount of Rs.
The Balance Sheet of the Respondent Company for the year 1988 89, revealed large debits towards salary and wages for direct and indirect workers, but the Respondent Company made a false statement that it had only 41 employees.
The representative of the Respondent Company appeared before Appellant No.
The companyversion of cloth into garment companyld be done by any person on behalf of the women workers.
The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P. No.
The Respondent Company was directed to pay the said amount within 7 days.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Delay companydoned.
The appellants engaged companytractors, and the companytractors engaged workers who rolled the bidis at their own homes after obtaining the raw materials either directly from the appellants, or through the companytractors.
On 12.03.1991, Appellant No.
Leave granted.
It was held that the Respondent Company had numberdirect or indirect companytrol over the women workers.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.07.24 165621 IST Reason The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under 2.1.
