Summary
Women stitching garments at home from company-supplied materials, to its specifications and subject to rejection of defective products, were employees for provident-fund purposes. Payment per garment, ownership of sewing machines and off-site work did not exclude them. The Court restored the provident-fund assessment and required payment within one month, distinguishing the differently worded employee definition in the Employees’ State Insurance Act.
Issues
- Whether home-based garment workers paid on a piece-rate basis were employees covered by the provident-fund legislation.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(f), Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Its inclusive definition covered these workers engaged for wages in connection with the establishment’s work, including work performed at home. (¶¶ 6, 6.1–6.9)
Held
- The company supplied materials and specifications and retained an absolute right to reject defective garments. Home production and piece-rate remuneration did not defeat the employment relationship. (¶¶ 6.2–6.7, 6.9)
- The provident-fund legislation is beneficial social-welfare legislation and its provisions should be interpreted beneficially to workmen. (¶ 6.8)
- C.E.S.C. Limited concerned supervision under the distinct Employees’ State Insurance Act definition. Section 2(f) of the provident-fund Act does not use that term, and the decision did not control this case. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and provident-fund assessment of Rs.15,97,087 restored. Company directed to deposit the assessed dues for the women workers within one month; pending applications disposed of.