Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the appeal grounds raised before the Tribunal shall be treated as counter filed before the Tribunal. The second respondent submitted that neither the apprentices are employees under Section 2 (f) EPF Act nor stipend paid to them is wage as per the provisions of the said Act. As such the establishment is not liable to remit any contribution as claimed by the PF organisation in respect of stipendiary apprentices. Further, the second respondent submitted the copies of the apprenticeship applications, apprenticeship scheme, syllabus and evaluation report for increasing the stipend to the apprentices, photos of training hall and class conducting session for the apprentices both theoretical and practical, Names of the training officers, supervisors, list of apprentices and stipend paid to them etc. are furnished before the authority. In spite of these, the Provident Fund Organization passed the order dated 09.06.2011 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis against the second respondent and the second respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has accepted the plea of the second respondent and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the PF organisation. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the plea of the Provident Fund is mere apprehension. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal.