ORDER
1. With reference to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 it is agreed by both Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, in so far as the appellant is concerned, would arise only if the establishment in question has been employing 20 or more persons and that, in view of the admitted factual position in the present case the establishment in question had only 18 employees, the question which would fall for consideration is whether the Tinplate House is a part and parcel of the Tinplate Company and whether, in effect and substance, those 18 employees working in Tinplate House were the employees of the Tinplate Company. If the 18 persons are the employees of Tinplate Company then of course they are a part of the larger establishment and the provisions of the Act being already applicable to the Tinplate Company, those 18 persons would also become a part of that establishment, but if it is found that those 18 persons are the employees of a separate entity, which by itself has nothing to dowith the Tinplate Company, then in that case that separate entity goes outside the purview of 1952 Act. Our attention was drawn to the Order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshed-pur as also the Order passed in appeal by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, but we notice from a reading of both these Orders that the aforesaid question has not been properly addressed and/or fully gone into either by the Provident Fund Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal. We are saying so because the most important parameters determining the status and nature of employment, viz. the source of appointment of those 18 persons with reference to their appointment orders and the drawal of emoluments by them have not been gone into by either of them. These are the two vital aspects which would go a long way to determine the nature of their employment.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that we should remit the matter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur for re-consideration of the entire issue and on examination of the record, both of Tinplate Company and Tinplate House, to redecide the aforesaid question with reference to the material available to the Commissioner.
3. Accordingly, the Order dated 29th July, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 835 of 2000(R) is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur with directions to him to re-consider the entire issue in the light of the observations made hereinabove. He shall ensure that the entire record of Tinplate Company as also Tinplate House is examined by him. The appellant is directed to render fullest co-operation and every assistance to the Commissioner and to produce before him for his consideration all the papers/documents and other records, which he thinks are relevant for deciding the issue. Depending upon the decision of the Commissioner consequences shall follow and the liability of the appellant, if so determined by the Commissioner, shallreckon from the date the Commissioner decides about the same.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.