Court upholds expanded coverage of casual workers under Employees Provident Fund Scheme

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal challenging the enforcement of the amended Paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, which expanded coverage to include casual workers/laborers. The Court upheld the applicability of the Act to casual workers under Section 2(f), rejecting the appellant's argument against the amendment. The Court emphasized that objections under Section 7-A could be raised regardless, affirming the original order's validity without costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the order enforcing amended Paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for temporary and casual workers engaged by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Builders Association, filed a Writ Petition challenging the enforcement of the amended Paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for casual workers/laborers engaged in construction activities.

2. The petitioner argued that casual workers were not originally covered under the Act, but the amendment expanded the coverage to include employees engaged by any establishment, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition seeking relief.

3. The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition but granted liberty to raise objections under Section 7-A of the Act. This decision prompted the filing of the present Writ Appeal.

4. The appellant's senior counsel contended that the amendment was erroneous, specifically citing Amendment 26(2) which mandated all employees in covered establishments to become Fund members.

5. The respondents' counsel highlighted Section 2(f) of the Act, defining an "employee" as any person employed for wages, thereby asserting the applicability of the Act to casual workers.

6. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Court noted that challenges to the validity of the amended paragraph had been dismissed previously, indicating that the amendment could not be challenged in the present petition.

7. The Court emphasized that as per Section 2(f) of the Act, the provisions applied to casual workers, rendering the appellant's contention baseless.

8. The appellant's argument that the Single Judge allowed objections under Section 7-A was acknowledged, but the Court reiterated that the right to raise objections existed regardless, and hence, the appellant's contentions were deemed untenable.

9. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the order passed in the original Writ Petition without imposing any costs.

---