Broad definition of employee under provident fund law covers casual and site workers engaged in connection with an establishment.

Amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 extended Fund membership to every employee employed in or in connection with a covered establishment, and the statutory definition of "employee" in section 2(f) was read broadly to include persons working for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise. On that construction, temporary, casual and site workers engaged in connection with the establishment fell within the Scheme's scope. The validity of the amendment had already been upheld at the Supreme Court level, while objections under section 7-A remained available. The writ appeal was rejected and the writ petition dismissal affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 could be challenged as inapplicable to temporary, casual and site workers engaged by the members of the association, and whether such workers fell within the definition of employee under the governing Act.

Analysis: The amended paragraph 26(2) extended membership of the Fund to every employee employed in or in connection with a factory or other establishment to which the Scheme applied. The definition of employee in section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was read broadly to include any person employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the establishment. The Court also noted that the validity of the amended paragraph had already been considered by the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the amendment. The liberty preserved to raise objections under section 7-A remained available.

Conclusion: The challenge to the amended paragraph 26(2) failed, and the provision was held applicable to such workers. The availability of objections under section 7-A was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal was rejected, and the dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed while preserving the appellant's statutory remedy under section 7-A.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition of employee is wide enough to cover persons employed for wages in connection with an establishment, an amended provident fund scheme extending membership to such employees cannot be invalidated merely because it reaches casual or site workers.

---