MANU/SC/0961/2019

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5821 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22243 of 2015)

Decided On: 24.07.2019

Appellants: The Officer In-charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Godavari Garments Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra

JUDGMENT

Indu Malhotra, J.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P. No. 1615 of 1993 by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under:

2.1. The Respondent Company is a subsidiary of the Marathwada Development Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra. It was covered 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.

2.2. The main objective of the Respondent Company, as per its Memorandum of Association, was to encourage, promote, develop, set-up or cause to be set-up 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.

2.3. The Respondent Company engaged women workers who were provided with cut fabric, thread, buttons, etc. to be made into garments at their own homes. The sewing machines used by the women workers were owned by them, and not provided by the Respondent Company.

2.4. On 12.03.1991, Appellant No. 1 - Officer In-Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office, issued a Show Cause Notice to the Respondent Company calling upon it to pay the Provident Fund contributions for the women workers. 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.

2.5. On 30.11.1992, Appellant No. 1 issued summons to the Respondent Company for personal hearing Under Section 7-A of the EPF Act.

2.6. The representative of the Respondent Company appeared before Appellant No. 1, and contended that the women workers who were fabricating garments for the Respondent Company, were not their employees, and hence not covered by Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. Therefore, even though wages were paid to those women workers, the Respondent Company was not liable to pay Provident Fund contribution in respect of them.

2.7. The Provident Fund Officer - Appellant No. 1 vide Order dated 19.04.1993 held that the women workers engaged for stitching garments were covered by the definition of "employee" Under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. An amount of Rs. 15,97,087/- was assessed towards Provident Fund dues of the Respondent Company for the period from November, 1979 to February, 1991. The Respondent Company was directed to pay the said amount within 7 days.

2.8. The Respondent Company challenged the aforesaid Order by filing W.P. No. 1615 of 1993 before the Bombay High Court.

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........