Bombay High Court Examines Applicability of Employees' Provident Funds Act to Pigmy Agents of Cooperative Banks. Writ Petitions Filed by Both Banks and Provident Fund Authorities Challenge Tribunal Orders on Coverage of Such Agents Under Section 18(3)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Writ petitions challenging orders of EPF authorities and the EPF Appellate Tribunal on the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds Act to pigmy agents/collection agents of cooperative banks.

Banks sought to establish non-applicability of the EPF Act to pigmy agents; EPF authorities sought to enforce coverage. Both sides challenged various orders.

Dispute over whether pigmy agents are covered under the EPF Act, and whether the Industrial Award barring such coverage is binding.

Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad made an award on this issue, which was modified by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank (1988) and confirmed by Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank (2001). EPF authorities had issued orders; some challenged before EPF Appellate Tribunal, which passed orders.

Whether pigmy agents/collection agents appointed by banks are covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952? Whether the Provident Fund Commissioner can enquire into the applicability of the Act on such banks? If yes, the extent of liability of the banks under the Act?

Banks argued that an Industrial Tribunal Award, as modified and confirmed up to Supreme Court, held that pigmy agents are not entitled to provident fund under EPF Act, and said award has binding force under section 18(3)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This group of writ petitions, filed by the banks (employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 On behalf of the banks, learned counsel led by Mr.R.L. Khapre contended that in view of the award of the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad concerning specific question referred to the said Tribunal by the Central Government, which stood modified by the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others , reported in 1988 (1) LLJ 233 and such modified award stood confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank , reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36 , there was no scope for the Provident Fund Commissioner to argue that the pigmy agents/ collection agents of the banks were covered under the provisions of the Act of 1952

The writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The matters were heard together due to common questions. The court reserved judgment on 28.02.2019 and pronounced it on 25.04.2019.

• Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 18(3)(d)
• Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: