Vasavi Florex vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others

H.V.G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-B, dated 9-1-2001/8-12-2001 passed by 3rd respondent and also to quash the order dated 30-8-2005 passed u/s 7A of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-C.

According to the petitioner, petitioner is a cent per cent export oriented floriculture company and it does not come within the definition of agricultural farms as per the list of industries to which the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applies, since no agricultural activity is being carried out, rather a fused rock called ''rock wool'' is being used for the purpose of growing flowers and as such the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 does not apply to the petitioner''s unit.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-authority has submitted that as per the averment made in the petition itself the petitioner''s unit is an export oriented establishment and as such, it comes within list No. 24 of the classes of establishments to which the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applies for the purpose of coverage.

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that it is an export-oriented unit growing flowers by using fused rock and not soil. When it is the specific case of the petitioner that it is an export oriented unit though it cannot be strictly termed as agriculture farm or botanical garden, but falls within list No. 24 of the list of industries to which the Act applies. In the impugned ordered passed by the authorities at Annexure-B and C it is observed that a new method has been adopted to grow flowers by using fused rock under the advanced form of agriculture by adopting drip irrigation in order to achieve greater produce and merely because soil is not used, it cannot be said that the petitioner''s establishment does not come within the purview of the Act since floriculture is an advanced form of agriculture growing specific commodity like flowers. So on two grounds the petitioner''s unit has been considered as industry for the purpose of coverage. Even if list No. 58 does not directly apply to the case as contended by the petitioner''s Counsel, since the petitioner''s unit is said to be an export oriented unit it is necessarily covered under list No. 24, page No. 21 of the classes of establishment to which the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is applicable as per Annexure-A.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed at Annexure-B and C. Hence, petition is dismissed.