1 CGHC010096142011 2026:CGHC:32519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 7722 of 2011  Management of Nandini Cinema, Nandini, C/o Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.). Through Deputy General Manager (Sports, Culture & Civic Amenities) ... Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation. Through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indira Gandhi Vyayasayik Parisar, Pandri, Raipu (CG). 3. S.S. Tiwari, Representative of 07 Employees (Including himself), Nandini Cinema, Nandini Mines, Nandini, Bhilai Steel Palnt, Bhilai, Durg (CG). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For U.O.I./respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The basic records connected with the Order dated 30.10.2000 made by Respondent No.2 may kindly be summoned from the Respondent No.2 for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The impugned order dated 15.03.2011 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.31 14:02:59 +0530 2 (Annexure: P-1) and order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) of the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal and order dated 30.10.2000(Annexure P-3) of the Respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice and when found expedient in the interest of justice, the reliefs may kindly be moulded.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner/Nandini Cinema Hall was established by the Bhilai Steel Plant for benefit of its workers in the year 1974. Seven workers were engaged by the petitioner for small duration of one hour for purpose of selling and checking tickets and they were being paid honorarium. The office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “EPF Act, 1952”) against the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner failed to remit the Provident Fund, Employees Pension Fund and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance contribution and administrative charges due in respect of 7 workers engaged in Cinema Hall in accordance with the provisions of EPF Act, 1952, Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. Notice was served upon employer for its appearance before the Commissioner on 15.07.1997. The petitioner herein appeared before the Commissioner and proceedings were adjourned from time to time. The matter was finally fixed for hearing on 30.10.2000 and on said date, the order was passed, whereby the Commissioner held that the seven members engaged by establishment are entitled for P.F. and other allied benefits under the EPF Act, 1952 from their due date of eligibility. 3. The petitioner herein assailed said order by filing an appeal before the 3 Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 130(8)/2001. The order dated 15.03.2011 would reveal that no-one appeared on behalf of the petitioner herein before the Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2011. A review petition was also filed against said order, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2011. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by filing this petition. 4. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate would contend that management of Nandini Cinema is not a part and parcel of Bhilai Steel Plant and seven casual workers engaged with Nandini Cinema were never employed by Bhilai Steel Plant and there is no document to establish this fact. He would further contend that the provisions of EPF Act, 1952 would not attract in the present matter, but the learned Commissioner as well as learned Appellate Tribunal wrongly applied EPF Act, 1952. It is also contended that the Commissioner as well as Appellant Tribunal applied provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952, whereas, in Schedule appended to EPF Act, 1952, the Cinematograph Act, 1952 does not find place. It is argued that seven casual employees were not engaged by Bhilai Steel Palnt and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner and learned Appellate Tribunal are bad in law. He would refer Schedule I of EPF Act, 1952 to buttress his submission. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that Nandini Cinema Hall was established by Bhilai Steel Plant itself, therefore, the workers engaged therein would be treated as employees of Bhilai Steel 4 Plant. He would refer Section 2(f) of EPF Act, 1952 and submit that the employee means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work. He would submit that there is admission on the part of the petitioner herein that Nandini Cinema Hall was established to provide entertainment to the workers of Bhilai Steel Plant and same is part and parcel of Bhilai Steel plant. He would contend that in the review petition, particularly, in para 4 & 5 there is categorical admission on the part of the petitioner. He would contend that if the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 would not attract though the petitioner is liable to make contribution according to the provisions of EPF Act, 1952. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the learned Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Shubham Tripathi and Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Advocates would endorse the submissions made by Mr. Pillai. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the cinema theater was started for welfare of mine workers and their families when there was no source of entertainment. Some persons were engaged to manage theater by the Bhilai Steel Plant itself. Theater was started in the year 1974 and it run till 2000. Proceedings were initiated under Section 7A of EPF Act, 1952 by the Commissioner in the year 1997 and final order was passed on 30.10.2000. 9. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2011, and subsequently, review petition was also dismissed. 5 10. Perusal of orders passed by the authorities would make it clear that the case was contested by the Bhilai Steel Plant itself to avoid the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In para 4 of review petition filed by the petitioner before the learned appellate Tribunal, it is categorically admitted that “the cinema theater was started for the welfare of the mine workers and their families at that point of time when it was the only source of entertainment existing there. It is also important to point out here that some persons of the steel plant were deputed to manage the theater and their PF contribution was being deposited regularly. The respondents herein were engaged in odd jobs of ticket booking and ticket checking and they were doing so on show basis at 10/- Rs. Per show, which was being paid as honorarium and which is not sufficient to bring these persons in the category of employees, as such.” In para 5, it is pleaded that “Another aspect worth noting here is that the cinema hall was opened as a separate and distinct Establishment for the welfare of the mine workers of the Bhilai Steel Plant and there was no element of profit making involved in it………….” 11. The pleadings made in paragraphs 4 & 5 would make it clear that Nandini Cinema Hall was established by Bhilai Steep Plant for its workers. Initially, employees of the plant were deployed there, and later on, seven workers were engaged to sell and check tickets. Description of employees is given in the order passed by the Commissioner, two workers were engaged as ‘Booking Clerk’, two persons as ‘Hall Keeper’, two persons as ‘Gate Keeper’, and one as ‘Farrash’. 12. The order passed by the Appellate Authority reveals that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 have been applied while passing the order dated 6 15.03.2011. The Appellate Tribunal observed that under the Cinematograph Act, if the staff strength crosses 5 persons, the Employees’ Provident Fund will apply. 13. In the Cinematograph Act, 1952, there is no such provision and further there was no need to apply provisions of said act when provisions of EPF Act, 1952 were sufficient to fastened liability with the petitioner herein. Though there is whisper with regard to Cinematograph Act, 1952, but provisions of said act have not applied and on strength of provisions of said act, appeal was not dismissed by the learned Appellant Tribunal, therefore, contention made by Dr. Shukla, Senior Advocate cannot be accepted. 14. Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952 defines employee, which reads as under :- “2(f) “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 an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment” 15. Bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that person, who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, who is being paid wages directly or indirectly would come within the definition of employee. In the review petition filed by the petitioner, there is admission that the Nandini Cinema Hall was established by the Bhilai Steel Plant itself and seven casual workers were deployed, therefore, petitioner was under obligation to make its contributions according to the provisions of EPF Act, 1952. 7 16. Having considered the findings recorded by the Commissioner affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and in light of the definition of ‘employee’ defined under the provisions of EPF Act, 1952, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 17. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant