- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 66782 OF 2010 (L-PF) BETWEEN: THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES, DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KRISHI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT PF COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB- REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB- REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING ORDER DATED 06/04/2010, PASSED BY THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN ATA NO.453 (6) 2005 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2010, PASSED BY THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN ATA NO.453 (6) 2005 (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation and also the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/employees who seek to come on record. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.04.2010 marked at Annexure - H. In terms of the said order, petitioners appeal before the Tribunal is rejected. 3. The petitioner is a University established under the Universities of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009. In terms of the order at Annexure-A dated 07.04.2005, demand is made to the tune of Rs.35,02,551/- towards arrears of contribution under The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, 1952). The said demand covers the period from August, 1992 to September, 2002. The petitioner- University contested the demand on the premise that it is not under obligation to pay make payment in respect of the casual and temporary employees. The contention was rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 Against the said order the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of impugned order dated 06.04.2010 the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the employees for whom the provident fund is demanded are casual employees or temporary employees, as such, the University is under no obligation to make payment as urged by the contesting respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Organization would submit that after 2002, the petitioner-University has been contributing towards the provident fund of the Casual employees. 6. Section 3 of the Act, 1952 reads as under: “3. Power to apply Act to an establishment which has a common provident fund with another establishment.-Where immediately before this Act becomes applicable to an establishment there is in existence a provident fund which is common to the employees employed in that establishment and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 employees in any other establishment, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this Act shall also apply to such other establishment.” 7. On going through the said provision, it is evident that the provision does not make any distinction between the casual employee, temporary employee or the regular employee. The definition of employee as found in Section 2(f) reads as under: "employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment), and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person,- (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment." 8. The Apex Court in M/s. Pawan Hans Limited & Ors. vs Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana & Ors.1 has held that even the daily wager or a casual wager or a temporary wager are covered under the Act, 1952. 1 AIR 2020 SC 564 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 9. The definition of employee would cover the employees for any kind of work either manual or otherwise. The said definition being broad enough, would cover the temporary employees as well as the casual employees. This being the position, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal. This Court does not find any reason to hold that the Act, 1952 does not apply to the petitioner establishment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner2. Referring to the said judgment, he would urge that the respondents have to make necessary efforts to identify the beneficiaries and the amount should be released in favour of the deserving beneficiaries. 11. Said submission is placed on record. 2 2008 LLR 980 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17279 WP No. 66782 of 2010 12. The respondents shall take necessary steps to release the amount in favour of the employees. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Application filed by the employees to come on record does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN, CHS Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4