Women workers stitching garments from home are employees under sec.2 (f) of Employees’ Provident Fund act

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 13th June 2020

The Officer In­ Charge, Sub ­Regional Provident Fund Office & Anr v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited

Facts:

In this case, the respondent company is a subsidiary of the Marathwada Development Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra. 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 women workers were owned by them not provided by the company. The appellant (Provident Fund office) issued a notice to the company to pay the provident fund contribution for women workers. The company appeared before the provident fund officer and said that women workers are not their employees and hence not covered by section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Fund act therefore the company does not need to pay provident fund. The provident fund officer held that the women workers are coming under the term employees as per section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Fund act and the company was directed to pay the dues within 7 days. The respondent filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the company has no direct or indirect control over the women employees and hence the company need not to pay the provident fund contribution for them. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (Provident Fund Office) for challenging the Bombay High Court order.

Issues:

1) Whether the women employees are covered under section 2(f) of Employees’ Provident Fund Act?

2) Whether the women employees are employees of Godavari garments limited company?

Observation:

The women workers were directly appointed by the management and hence the employer has direct control over the women workers therefore women workers are employees of the respondent. Sec. 2(f) of Employees’ Provident Fund act says, “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer. The Respondent Company had the absolute right to reject the finished product in case of any defects that itself clearly shows that the respondent has “Supervision and Control” over the women workers. Hence in this case the employer- employee relationship has been proved through supervision and control test and also the term employee include women workers also therefore the respondent is liable to pay the provident fund contribution to women workers.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though the women workers are doing their work at home, they are the employees of the respondent company. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Bombay High Court and directed the respondent to pay the provident fund dues within the one month from the date of judgment.