THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.13542 of 2006 Between:
GVK Biosciences Private Limited Rep by its General Manager (Finance), Mr. N.S. Viswanathan PETITIONER AND
1. The Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Enforcement), EPF Organisation, Regional Office: H.No.3-4-763, Barkatpura, Hyderabad – 500 027, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is directed against the order bearing No.AP/41926/ENF.C.II/T-7/2006/3434, dated 7.06.2006 passed by the 1st respondent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement), E.P.F. Organisation, Regional Office, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. Central Aercanut
[1]
and Coca Marketing and Processing Co-op., Ltd., Mangalore .
4. In the above said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the trainees, at paragraphs 11 and 12 held as under:
“11. In the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were 'apprentices' engaged under the 'Standing Orders' of the establishment.
12. Above being the position, it cannot be said that the concerned 45 trainees were employees in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. In other words, an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders is excluded from the definition of an 'employee' as per Section 2(f) of the Act. “
5. In the instant case, admittedly, the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is assailed before this Court. In fact, as per the provisions of Section 7(I) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 7-A of the Act, can prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
6. In view of the availability of said alternative remedy, this court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail such remedy, without going into the merits and demerits of the case.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act against the orders passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.AP/41926/ENF.C.II/T-7/2006/3434, dated 7.06.2006, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be disposed of by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, interim order dated 4.07.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.16831 of 2006 shall continue to operate. W.V.M.P.No.1350 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
23rd July, 2014 Js.
[1] 2006 (2) SCC 381