IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 14338 of 2002(F)
1. M/S.AJANTHA ELECTRICALS AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/01/2007
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 14338 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th January, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a contractor executing some electrical works for
the 1st respondent-Airport Authority of India. The petitioner is
aggrieved by Exts. P14 and P16 orders which are the orders of the
original authority and the appellate authority under the Employees
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act holding that the
petitioner is an establishment liable to be covered under the Act. The
petitioner challenges the same on two grounds. The first is that since
the 1st respondent-authority is an establishment exempted from the
purview of Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner who is executing
works in an exempted establishment is also not liable to be covered
under the Act. The second contention is that since the petitioner is
not employing the required number of workers for coverage under the
Act, the orders of the lower authorities holding that the petitioner’s
establishment is liable to be covered under the Act is unsustainable.
2. I am of opinion that these contentions need not be
considered at all in this case because as revealed from the impugned
orders, the petitioner had earlier suffered an order under Section 7A
of the Act holding that the petitioner is liable to be covered under the
Act. That order was challenged under the erstwhile Section 19A of
the Act, which was later repealed by amendment of the Act as a
consequence of which, that petition was forwarded to the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, who also dismissed the petition.
The petitioner has not chosen to challenge those orders in any
proceedings known to law. Therefore, the question of coverage of
the petitioner under the Act has already become final and he cannot
now rake up the same again in fresh proceedings under Section 7A.
That being so, even without going into the contentions raised in this
original petition, the original petition is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.C. No. -: 2 :-
3. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the contentions of
the petitioner. The 1st respondent-authority is exempted from the
provisions of the Act only because the employees of the 1st respondent
are getting social insurance benefits equivalent to the benefits under
the Provident Funds Act under their own rules. The petitioner has no
case that the petitioner’s employees have any kind of such social
insurance by way of provident fund or otherwise. That being so, even
though the 1st respondent is exempted from the purview of the Act,
the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of that exemption in so far as
its employees are not enjoying any of the benefits that are being
enjoyed by the employees of the 1st respondent similar to the benefits
provided under the Act.
4. Regarding the second contention, the petitioner has not
chosen to raise such a contention before the 7A authority to the effect
that the petitioner’s establishment is not liable to be covered under
the Act since the establishment does not employ the required number
of employees required for coverage under the Act. No such
contention has also been raised before the appellate authority. That
being so, the petitioner cannot now raise such a contention in this
original petition.
For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the original
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/