ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLYM/S U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR. versus M/S U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 14-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
237
ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLY
v.
M/S U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6295 of 2019)
AUGUST 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952: ss.2(f), 7A –  Liability of Corporation to pay statutory
contribution in relation to workers (total 159 at relevant time)
engaged in the work of loading and unloading in the Godowns of
the Corporation – Entitlement of workers to claim benefit under the
Act – Case of Corporation was that the stocking, loading and
unloading of the commodities in its godown is done through
contractors, who in turn, employs the workers for doing the said
job for the Corporation in their godown – Adjudicating authority
held that the Corporation was liable to pay the contribution of these
workers in accordance with the provisions of the Act – Appellate
authority upheld the order, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition
by the Corporation in the High Court – High Court placed reliance
on the finding by the High Court recorded in an earlier proceedings
that there was no relationship of master and servant between the
Corporation (as master) and the workers (as servants) and held
that in view of that finding, the proceedings in question were bad in
law – On appeal, held: High Court should have seen that the
proceedings in question had arisen out of the PF Act and, therefore,
the issue was required to be decided in the light of the relevant
provisions of the PF Act and not in the light of the finding recorded
in the proceedings arising under the Industrial Disputes Act – High
Court did not notice the definition of “employee” given in s.2(f) of
the Act and proceeded to pass the impugned order only in the light
of finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the ID Act –
Matter remitted to High Court for adjudication afresh – Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 – Labour Laws.
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 237
237
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD : The High Court failed to examine the issue keeping
in view the definition of “employee” as defined under Section
2(f) of the Act. The High Court should have seen that the
proceedings in question have arisen out of the Act in question
and, therefore, the issue was required to be decided in the light
of the relevant provisions of the Act in question but not in the
light of the finding recorded in the proceedings arising under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.   The High Court also should have
seen that in order to decide the relationship of employer and
employee for the purpose of applicability of the Act in question,
the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of  “employee”
as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. It should have been seen
that firstly, the definition of  “employee” under the ID Act is not
identical to the definition of “employee” defined under Section
2(f) of the Act;  and secondly, the object of the ID Act and the Act
in question is not the same. In other words, the definition of
“employee” under the ID Act and the one defined under the Act
in question are not similar.  Even their objects are also not
identical. It is for these two reasons, any finding recorded by the
Labour Court while deciding the dispute under the ID Act will be
of no consequence while deciding the question arising under the
Act in question. The issue was, therefore, required to be decided
independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the
ID Act.  [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22] [241-E-H; 242-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6295
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  27.08.2013 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49599
of 2011.
Keshav Mohan, Rishi K. Awasthi, Prashant Kumar, Smarhar
Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
P. N. Misra, Sr. Adv., Alok Kumar Pandey, Niraj Jha, Ms. Pratima
Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, R. R. Rajesh, Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
27.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
CMWP No. 49599 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and quashed the awards dated
03.08.2010 and 02.12.2002 passe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.