JUDGMENT :- (1) Since common questions of fact and law are involved, these two writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. At the outset, it would be necessary to give the brief facts of each case. (2) W.P.No.28153 of 2008: The petitioners are practising Chartered Accountants and Chartered Accountant Firms. The erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB) in or about 1985 entrusted the work relating to collection of revenues from its consumers by engaging the petitioners as Private Accounting Agencies. Even after incorporation of the APTRANSCO consequent to the enactment of A.P. Reforms Act, 1999, the same procedure has been followed by the Distribution Companies of the APTRANSCO and the petitioners herein have been continued with the Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited (APEPDCL). The APEPDCL through the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle, entered into periodical agreements with the petitioners entrusting the work relating to LT bi-monthly services i.e., collection of revenues from the consumers. Various duties and responsibilities relating to generation of outputs after spot billing and regular accounting were entrusted to the petitioners under the agreements. As per Part-A of the Agreement, the petitioners were required to process and generate reports such as Bills analysis, Demand abstract, Bill book abstract, Pre-printed receipts and Reports relating to demand analysis. Under the agreements, the petitioners are called Private Accounting Agencies (PAAs) and they are entitled for remuneration for the works executed at the rates specified in the agreement. It is stated that the writ petitioners are getting the said work executed through the Articled Clerks / Assistants engaged by them as per the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. While so, a compliant dated 4.5.2005 was said to have been made by one Dadi Venkata Appa Rao, the Divisional Secretary of APSEB Employees Union, Paderu, complaining that the workers engaged by the APEPDCL through the Chartered Accountant Firms allegedly on contract basis were not being extended the benefits under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, EPF Act). In pursuance thereof, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam called upon the APEPDCL to enrol all such contract workers from the date of coverage of the establishment (APEPDCL) or from the date of their employment with the Chartered Accountant Firms whichever is applicable. In pursuance thereof, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam called upon the APEPDCL to enrol all such contract workers from the date of coverage of the establishment (APEPDCL) or from the date of their employment with the Chartered Accountant Firms whichever is applicable. The APEPDCL took a stand that its arrangement with the professional Chartered Accountant firms was only for utilization of professional consultancy services in the areas of billing, and book keeping and for rendering suitable professional services for the benefit of its consumers and therefore the personnel engaged by the professional Chartered Accountants would not be employees of APEPDCL within the definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. Accordingly APEPDCL refused to enrol the contract workers engaged by the Chartered Accountant Firms/PAAs. Having regard to the stand taken by the APEPDCL, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated enquiry under Para 26-B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short, EPF Scheme) and issued notices to the APEPDCL as well as the petitioners. All of them appeared before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam contending inter alia that the enquiry under Para-26-B itself was without jurisdiction since the provisions of the EPF Act were not at all attracted. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam by order dated 16.7.2008 concluded that the personnel engaged by the petitioners/ Private Accounting Agencies for the execution of the work of the APEPDCL were employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act and as such they were entitled to become members under the EPF Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from the first day of their employment by the Private Accounting Agencies. Challenging the said order, W.P.No.28153 of 2008 has been filed by PAAs (Chartered Accountants and Chartered Accountant Firms) (3) W.P.No.14508 of 2009 : The petitioners herein are also practising Chartered Accountants and Chartered Accountant Firms. They are attached to the AP Central Power Distribution Company Limited (for short, APCPDCL) which has entered into periodical agreements with the petitioners entrusting the work relating to LT bi-monthly services which included (1) Bills analysis (2) Demand abstract (3) Bill book abstract (4) Pre-printed receipts (5) Reports relating to demand analysis. The terms and conditions of the agreement and the nature of the services rendered by the petitioners herein are similar to that of the petitioners in W.P.No.28153 of 2008. The terms and conditions of the agreement and the nature of the services rendered by the petitioners herein are similar to that of the petitioners in W.P.No.28153 of 2008. On the basis of certain complaints said to have been received from the Contract Labour Unions alleging that the employees engaged by the APCPDCL through the Chartered Accountant Firms on contract basis were not being extended the benefits envisaged under the EPF Act and the Schemes framed thereunder, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner called upon the APCPDCL to enrol all such contract employees from the date of coverage of the establishment or from the date of their employment with the Private Accounting Firms whichever is later. Since APCPDCL failed to enrol the said employees, an enquiry under Section 7-A of the EPF Act was initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the dues payable in respect of the contract employees allegedly engaged by APCPDCL. Notices were also served on the petitioners and having participated in the enquiry it was contended by the petitioners that the employees engaged by them for doing the work of APCPDCL did not come within the definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. The matter was then referred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Guntur, for enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. Subsequently the matter was transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Kadapa and notices were issued to the APCPDCL, the complainants as well as the petitioners. After hearing all the parties, by order dated 30.01.2009 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Kadapa held that the personnel engaged by the PAAs for carrying out the work of the APCPDCL were employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act and they were entitled to become members under the Schemes framed under the said Act with effect from the date of their employment by PAAs. Accordingly, the petitioners as well as the APCPDCL were directed to enrol the contract workers and remit the dues. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.14508 of 2009 has been filed by PAAs. Counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents : On behalf of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, counter-affidavits have been filed in both the Writ Petitions taking an identical stand as under : The respective Distribution Companies (APEPDCL and APCPDCL) are establishments covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. Counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents : On behalf of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, counter-affidavits have been filed in both the Writ Petitions taking an identical stand as under : The respective Distribution Companies (APEPDCL and APCPDCL) are establishments covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. They failed to enroll the employees employed by them through the PAAs. Hence after making an enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme, 1952, the impugned orders were rightly passed. While asserting that the PAAs were doing the work of Distribution Companies and thus the employees employed by the PAAs fall within the scope of the definition under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act, it is contended that the employees were entitled for enrolement as members of PF. It is further contended that since the PAAs were not covered independently, their plea that they had employed less than 20 was irrelevant. (4) In W.P.No.14508 of 2009 the Private Accounting Collection and Contract Labour Union (hereinafter referred to as the Contract Labour Union) was arrayed as the 2nd respondent and in the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf it is stated that the members of the said Union were working with the petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P.No.14508 of 2009 and that they were paid lumpsum amount of Rs.3,000/-per month. It is contended that the auditing work was different from billing and accounting work in the Power Distribution Company, which was a work charged establishment and was covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. It is further contended that since the Power Distribution Company had included the contract workers within the purview of E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 as long back as in 1994, it is not open for the PAAs to contend that the members of the 2nd respondent Union-Contract Labour would not come under the purview of EPF Scheme, 1952. It is further contended that the agreements between the Power Distribution Company and PAAs were purely business contracts for execution of certain work of the company and for the purpose of the said work the PAAs had engaged the members of the Contract Labour Union. It is further contended that the agreements between the Power Distribution Company and PAAs were purely business contracts for execution of certain work of the company and for the purpose of the said work the PAAs had engaged the members of the Contract Labour Union. While denying the plea that the works entrusted by the APCPDCL were executed by the Chartered Accountants in their respective offices through the Articled Clerks/ Trainees or Personnel as regular employees, it is stated that as far as petitioners 3 and 4 were concerned they had engaged the members of the Contract Labour Union on contract basis exclusively for doing accounting work and billing work of APCPDCL. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the APEPDCL and APCPDCL. Contentions: I have heard Sri C.R. Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.28153 of 2008 and Sri A. Ramasubbaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.14508 of 2009 as well as Sri R.N. Reddy, Smt. K. Rajyalakshmi and Sri K. Rajanna, the learned counsel appearing for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, the Power Distribution Companies, and the Contract Labour Union (2nd respondent in W.P.No.14508 of 2009) respectively. (5) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme is without jurisdiction since the question whether a person is an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act cannot be decided in such enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. On merits, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the personnel engaged by the PAAs for the work of the APEPDCL and APCPDCL were not the employees of the said Power Distribution Companies within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act and therefore they were not required to be enrolled as members of the Fund. (6) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation while seeking to justify the orders under challenge and while pointing out that as per Clause-34 of the Agreements, the PAAs were responsible for EPF in respect of the workers engaged by them, contended that the conclusion of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners that the personnel engaged by the PAAs were employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act and that they were entitled to become members of the EPF Act did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for Private Accounting Collection and Contract Labour Union (respondent No.2 in W.P.No.14508 of 2009) while adopting the stand taken by the EPF Organisation, further contended that the finding of fact arrived at by the competent authority for the purpose of extending the beneficial legislation to the members of the Contract Labour Union warrants no interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. Analysis of the contentions: The contention that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had no jurisdiction under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme to decide the question whether a person was an employee or not within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act was raised on behalf of the PAAs as a preliminary objection before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who was the authority empowered to make the enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. The preliminary objection was rejected by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner holding that the authority under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme had an inherent power to decide the question whether a person was an employee or not for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. The preliminary objection was rejected by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner holding that the authority under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme had an inherent power to decide the question whether a person was an employee or not for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. (7) The said conclusion of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been assailed in these two writ petitions reiterating the contention that the enquiry contemplated under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme was confined only to resolution of the doubts as to whether an employee was entitled or required to become or continue as a member of the Fund or as regards the date from which he was so entitled or required and the scope of the said enquiry cannot be enlarged to go into the question whether a person was an employee or not within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in GLAMOUR v. RPFC (Del. H.C.)1. (8) At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has been enacted to provide for the institution of provident funds for the employees in factories and other establishments. It is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees engaged in the factory or the establishment mainly with the object of instituting compulsorily of contributory provident funds in which both the worker and the employer would contribute so as to make some provision for the future of the industrial worker after he retires or for his dependents in case of his early death. The EPF Act is made applicable to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule-I and in which 20 or more persons are employed and to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such establishment which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify. Section 5 of the EPF Act, 1952 empowers the Central Government to frame Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident fund under the Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishment or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply. Section 5 may be extracted hereunder: 5. Section 5 of the EPF Act, 1952 empowers the Central Government to frame Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident fund under the Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishment or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply. Section 5 may be extracted hereunder: 5. Employees' Provident Fund Scheme (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a Scheme to be called the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under this Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishments or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply and there shall be established, as soon as may be after the framing of the Scheme, a Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme. (1A) The Fund shall vest in, and be administered by, the Central Board constituted under section 5A. (1B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Scheme framed under sub-section (1) may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Schedule II. (2) A Scheme framed under sub-section- (1) may provide that any of its provisions shall take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified in this behalf in the Scheme. (9) In exercise of the said power conferred under Section 5, the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, has been framed and Paragraphs 26, 26-A and 26-B of the said Scheme, which are relevant for the purpose of the present case, run as under: Para 26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the Fund:-(1)(a) Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment. (b) Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall also be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment if on the date of such coming into force, such employee is a subscriber to a provident fund maintained in respect of the factory or other establishment, or in respect of any other factory or establishment (to which the Act applies) under the same employer: Provided that where the Scheme applies to a factory or other establishment on the expiry or cancellation of an order of exemption under section 17of the Act, every employee who but for the exemption would have become and continued as a member of the fund, shall become a member of the fund forthwith. . . . . . . . . . . . . Para 26-A. Retention of membership:- (1) A member of the Fund shall continue to be member until he withdraws under paragraph 69 the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or is covered by a notification of exemption under section 17 of the Act or an order of exemption under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A. Explanation:-in the case of claim for refund by a member under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 69, the membership of the Fund shall be deemed to have been terminated from the date the payment is authorised to him by the authority specified in this behalf by Commissioner irrespective of the date of claim. (2) Every member employed as an employee other than an excluded employee, in a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies shall contribute to the Fund, and the contribution shall be payable to the Fund in respect of him by the employer. (2) Every member employed as an employee other than an excluded employee, in a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies shall contribute to the Fund, and the contribution shall be payable to the Fund in respect of him by the employer. Such contribution shall be in accordance with the rate specified in paragraph 29: Provided that subject to the provisions contained in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 26 and in sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph 27, or sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph 27-A, where the monthly pay of such a member exceeds six thousand and five hundred rupees the contribution payable by him, and in respect of him by the employer, shall be limited to the amounts payable on a monthly pay of six thousand and five hundred rupees including dearness allowance, retaining allowance (if any) and cash value of food concession. Para 26-B. Resolution of doubts:-If any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision, of the Regional Commissioner shall be final. (10 ) (10) As per para 1 (3) (a) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as EPF Scheme) the said Scheme shall apply to all factories and other establishments to which the EPF Act applies subject to the exemptions under Section 16 and Section 17 of the EPF Act. Section 5(1) of the EPF Act read with Para 26 of the EPF Scheme makes it clear that a Fund shall be established in respect of all such factories and establishments in accordance with the provisions of the EPF Act and the EPF Scheme and that every employee employed in or in connection with the work of such factory or other establishment to which the scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled to become a member of the Fund. As per Para 26A (2) of the EPF Scheme, such member shall contribute to the Fund and the contribution shall be payable to the Fund in respect of him by the employer in accordance with the rates specified in Paragraph 29. As per Para 26A (2) of the EPF Scheme, such member shall contribute to the Fund and the contribution shall be payable to the Fund in respect of him by the employer in accordance with the rates specified in Paragraph 29. In case any dispute arises as to the entitlement of any employee to become or continue as a member of the Fund or with regard to the date of such entitlement, Para 26-B provides that such dispute shall be decided by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. For proper appreciation of the purport of the above referred provisions, it is necessary to see how the word employee is defined under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act. Section 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 Apprentice Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment. (11) As could be seen, every person who is employed for wages in any kind of work or in connection with the work of an establishment and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer is brought within the meaning of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. That apart a person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of establishment as well as a person engaged as an apprentice are also expressly included within the meaning of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. Paras 26, 26-A and 26-B of the EPF Scheme, if read in the light of the definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act, there can be no dispute that every person employed in or in connection with any kind of work of an establishment and gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer shall be entitled to become a member of the Fund under Para 26 of the EPF Scheme. Every such person, under Para 26-A (2) of the EPF Scheme, shall contribute to the Fund which shall be payable in respect of him by the employer. Every such person, under Para 26-A (2) of the EPF Scheme, shall contribute to the Fund which shall be payable in respect of him by the employer. Similarly if the definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act is applied to Para 26-B of the Scheme, it reads that in case any dispute arises whether a person employed in or in connection with any kind of work of the establishment and gets his wages from the employer is entitled to become a member of the Fund or not, such dispute has to be resolved by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. (12) It automatically follows that the decision under Para 26-B of EPF Scheme with regard to entitlement of an employee to become a member of the Fund includes the enquiry into the question whether such person whose entitlement is under dispute is employed for wages in or in connection with the work of the establishment and gets his wages from the employer so as to fit into the definition of the employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the jurisdiction under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme shall be confined only to those cases where there is no dispute that the person employed in the establishment is an employee is untenable and misconceived. In GLAMOUR v. RPFC (1 supra) upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon, the petitioner therein who was dealing in sale of sarees at New Delhi was covered under the Scheme of Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952. The respondent No.3 therein was employing about 6 persons and had been carrying on tailoring business at the premises of the petitioner. Contending that the persons employed by the 3rd respondent were the employees of the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to enrol them under the Act for the purpose of PF Scheme. The petitioner contended that there was no need to enroll the employees of the 3rd respondent who had an independent business. The said contention was not accepted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner exercising the power under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. Pursuant thereto, a demand for payment of arrears of PF dues was issued. The petitioner contended that there was no need to enroll the employees of the 3rd respondent who had an independent business. The said contention was not accepted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner exercising the power under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. Pursuant thereto, a demand for payment of arrears of PF dues was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court contending that since the questions involved raised disputes about the status of the 3rd respondent and of his employees, the same could not have been decided under Para 26-B. However, the said question was not gone into by the Court and it was concluded that the controversy involved therein was covered by Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952. Hence, the said decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no assistance to decide the scope and extent of power conferred on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme. (13) For the aforesaid reasons, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners of Visakhapatnam and Kadapa cannot be said to have committed any error in taking up the enquiry under Para 26-B of EPF Scheme and the impugned orders cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners while elaborating the contention that the personnel engaged by the PAAs were not the employees of the APEPDCL and APCPDCL within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act submitted that as the relationship between the Chartered Accountants and the Power Distribution Companies was one of the professional service, the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants in their own right could not be construed as employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. It is also contended that the Chartered Accountants were not Contractors either for the purpose of the definition of the employee under Section 2 (f) or within the meaning of Section 8-A of the EPF Act so as to bring the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants in connection with the work of Power Distribution Companies within the meaning of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. It is also contended that as the Power Distribution Companies had no direct or indirect supervision over the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants and further the services of the personnel so engaged were also being utilized by the Chartered Accountants for other works unrelated to the work of Power Distribution Companies and moreover as the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants were not performing the duties in the premises of Power Distribution Companies and there was no relationship of Master and Servant between the Power Distribution Companies and the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants, they did not fall within the definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KARACHI BAKERY v. R.P.F. COMMISSIONER2. (14) While submitting that the definition of the term employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act is analogous to the definition of the employee under Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions in BOC INDIA LTD. v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC, HYDERABAD3; HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. ESI CORPORATION4; EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD. v. ESIC5; CESE LTD. v. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE6 and ESIC v. AP ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION7. The learned counsel also referred to the definition of Commercial Establishment under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short Shops Act) and relied upon a decision of this Court in S.V.G. RATNA GUPTA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH8 wherein it was held that the office of the Chartered Accountant was not a commercial establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Shops Act merely on the ground that the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountant were sitting in the premises of a branch office of A.P. Electricity Board for the purpose of billing. (15) It is not in dispute that APEPDCL and APCPDCL are the establishments covered by the EPF Act. Admittedly the EPF Scheme, 1952 is also applicable to the said companies and consequently, as provided under Para-26 of EPF Scheme, the employees employed in or in connection with the work of APEPDCL and APCPDCL are entitled to become members of the Fund established in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Admittedly the EPF Scheme, 1952 is also applicable to the said companies and consequently, as provided under Para-26 of EPF Scheme, the employees employed in or in connection with the work of APEPDCL and APCPDCL are entitled to become members of the Fund established in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Admittedly the benefit of the EPF Scheme has been extended not only to the employees employed by APEPDCL and APCPDCL but also to the contract labour working with the labour contractors. All of them are made members of the Provident Fund established under the EPF Scheme and it is not in dispute that APEPDCL and APCPDCL are making contributions to the Provident Fund in respect of the contract labour also. However, the personnel engaged by the Chartered Accountants for the purpose of APEPDCL and APCPDCL (hereinafter referred to as Power Distribution Companies) are not made members of the Provident Fund and they are not extended the benefits under EPF Act and the Schemes framed thereunder. The Power Distribution Companies refused to enrol them as members of the Fund contending that the personnel engaged by PAAs, whose professional consultancy services in the area of billing and generating various data were being utilized by the Power Distribution Companies as per the terms and conditions of the agreements between the Companies and PAAs, were not the employees of the Power Distribution Companies within the definition of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. (16) In the enquiry under Para 26-B of the EPF Scheme it was contended on behalf of the Power Distribution Companies as well as PAAs that the personnel engaged by PAAs were not the employees of the Public Distribution Companies within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act as there was no master and servant relationship between the persons engaged by PAAs and the Power Distribution Companies and that the Power Distribution Companies had no control over the personnel so engaged by PAAs. While rejecting the said contentions, it was held in the impugned orders that various terms and conditions stipulated in the agreements entered into between PAAs and the Power Distribution Companies established that the Power Distribution Companies had an effective control over the execution of the work outsourced to PAAs thereby creating effective master and servant relationship between the personnel engaged by PAAs and the Power Distribution Companies. While observing that the PAAs failed to make out a case to show that the EPF Act was applicable only to the contractors who were governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it was further held that as PAAs had undertaken to do specific work for the Power Distribution Companies under the contract of service executed between them, the PAAs were the contractors within the meaning of the term contractor mentioned in Section 8-A of the EPF Act, 1952. Thus, it was concluded that the employees of the PAAs who were engaged for the work of the Power Distribution Companies were entitled for the membership under the EPF Act and the Scheme either as direct employees of PAAs which engaged them if such PAA was covered under the EPF Act or as indirect employees of the Power Distribution Companies if the PAA who engaged them was not covered under the EPF Act. The question that arises for consideration is whether the orders impugned in these two writ petitions wherein the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners of Visakhapatnam and Kadapa had concluded that the persons engaged by the PAAs for execution of the work of Power Distribution Companies were employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act are sustainable under law. (17) A reading of the definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act (extracted above) shows that so as to satisfy the said definition the person must have been employed for wages in or in connection with the work of an establishment and must have been getting his wages directly or indirectly from the employer i.e., the person or the authority who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment. In addition to that, the persons employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment are also included in the definition of the employee. (18) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the persons whose entitlement to become members of the Fund is in question, are not employed by the Power Distribution Companies. Admittedly they are engaged by PAAs and they are executing the work in the Power Distribution Companies relating to collection of revenues from the consumers. There is also no material to show that they are getting their wages directly or indirectly from the Power Distribution Companies. Admittedly they are engaged by PAAs and they are executing the work in the Power Distribution Companies relating to collection of revenues from the consumers. There is also no material to show that they are getting their wages directly or indirectly from the Power Distribution Companies. It is true that the said persons are executing the work of the Power Distribution Companies in terms of the agreements executed between PAAs and the Power Distribution Companies and PAAs are being paid remuneration. However Part-B of the Agreements under which the remuneration payable to the PAAs is specified, shows that the remuneration has been fixed at the prescribed rate per service per month and not on the basis of the persons engaged by PAAs. Thus, apparently the first part of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act is not attracted and therefore it is necessary to examine whether the persons so engaged by the PAAs can be brought within the purview of the second part i.e., persons employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment. In KARACHI BAKERYS case (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court while analysing the very same definition of employee under Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act held as under : In our view, the words whether they are employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment, postulate that such persons must be employed by or through a contractor as contract labour. In other words, the contract for purposes of S. 2(f) between the establishment and the contractor must be a contract by which a contractor agrees and brings labour to be employed by the establishment. The contractor for purposes of S. 2(f) is purely a labour-contractor and not an independent contractor who contracts to deliver a finished product to the establishment and who for purposes of manufacture of such a finished product, engages labour for his own purposes. In the latter case, the contractor cannot be treated as one who is employed to get labour for and on behalf of the principal establishment but will be an independent contractor who alone exclusively controls and supervises the work of his employees and directs what work is to be done and how it is to be done. In the latter case, the contractor cannot be treated as one who is employed to get labour for and on behalf of the principal establishment but will be an independent contractor who alone exclusively controls and supervises the work of his employees and directs what work is to be done and how it is to be done. (19) From the above ratio laid down by the Division Bench, it is clear that a contractor who has engaged to bring the labour for and on behalf of the establishment is different from a contractor who merely contracts to manufacture and deliver a finished product or to get a specific work executed by employing his own labour. In the instant case, the petitioners are practising Chartered Accountants and Chartered Accountant Firms and their profession is governed and regulated by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. They are holding certificates of practice issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, a statutory body functioning under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 whereunder they are permitted to render various professional services including auditing, accounting and management consultancy services. The petitioners have undertaken the work of the Power Distribution Companies relating to collection of revenues from the consumers which included various responsibilities relating to the generation of outputs after spot billing and regular accounting. Condition No.7 of the Agreement enumerated various reports/returns which the petitioners/PAAs have to update every month. (20) It is the specific case of the petitioners/PAAs that the work assigned to them under the agreements is being executed by their regular employees, articled clerks/assistants engaged as per the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 or trainees who join for a short period to get the work experience with or without stipend. Except a vague denial, no material could be produced by the PF authorities to show that the petitioners/PAAs had employed separate set of persons exclusively for execution of the work of the Power Distribution Companies. Even in the agreements between PAAs and Power Distribution Companies, no such clause was stipulated and no finding was recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners that the PAAs had engaged the persons for and on behalf of the Power Distribution Companies. Even in the agreements between PAAs and Power Distribution Companies, no such clause was stipulated and no finding was recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners that the PAAs had engaged the persons for and on behalf of the Power Distribution Companies. (21) In the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the PAAs are employing the persons of their own for the purpose of their various professional services, including the execution of the work of the Power Distribution Companies entrusted to them under the agreements. Thus, the PAAs under no circumstances can be treated as ordinary labour contractors and the persons executing the works of the Power Distribution Companies as per the terms and conditions of the agreements cannot be treated as persons engaged by PAAs for and on behalf of the Power Distribution Companies. Apparently, the petitioners/PAAs are independent entities engaging the employees themselves for the purpose of their professional services as well as for getting executed the work entrusted to them by the Power Distribution Companies under the agreements. (22) It is also relevant to note that under the agreements executed between the petitioners/PAAs and the Power Distribution Companies, a specific job was assigned to the petitioners making it clear that the required staff should be engaged to ensure that the assigned work was completed on the due dates under any circumstances. It is true that the procedure of execution of the work assigned has been stipulated in detail in the terms and conditions. However there is no reason to presume that the Power Distribution Companies have retained the effective control over the execution of the work. On the other hand the conditions, under which the petitioners are required to update the consumer master for each month taking into account various reports/returns specified thereunder and are also made liable to indemnify any claims, demands, or judgments of any nature brought against the Power Distribution Companies arising out of the services by the petitioners and their staff under the contract, make it clear that the petitioners/PAAs are independent units and under the contracts they are liable to perform a specific work on their own and furnish various reports/returns, inputs, etc., in conformity with the conditions stipulated under the agreement. The various conditions stipulated would only go to show the standards required to be maintained by the petitioners in execution of the work entrusted to them and therefore the finding arrived at in the impugned orders that there was master and servant relationship between the persons engaged by the PAAs and Power Distribution Companies and that the Power Distribution Companies had effective control over the execution of the works in question is unfounded and unsustainable. (23) Even with regard to the wages, it is to be noticed that what was agreed to be paid to the PAAs under the agreements was the remuneration on the basis of the accounting works executed by them at the prescribed rate per service per month. The PAAs are required to furnish the remuneration bills to the concerned Assistant Accounts Officer of the Power Distribution Companies for each month ensuring that the prescribed works are completed and thereupon the bills would be processed for arranging payment. There is also no material to show that the persons engaged by the PAAs are being paid out of the remuneration so received by them from the Power Distribution Companies. Hence, under no circumstances it can be held that the said persons were getting their wages even indirectly from the Power Distribution Companies. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioners committed a grave error in drawing a presumption that the charges paid by the Power Distribution Companies to the PAAs included the wages paid by the PAAs to their employees. As noticed above, Part-B of the Agreements was very specific with regard to the terms of the remuneration and there was no reason to draw any such presumption. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioners were also not correct in relying upon Clause-34 of the agreements so as to conclude that both the Power Distribution Companies and PAAs had agreed that the persons engaged by PAAs are entitled to become members of the Provident Fund. Admittedly the said clause is a later addition making the PAAs responsible for EPF towards the workers engaged in their firm. The said clause is not only vague but it is also not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the persons engaged by the PAAs are the employees of the Power Distribution Companies within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act, particularly to fasten the liability with a retrospective date. The said clause is not only vague but it is also not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the persons engaged by the PAAs are the employees of the Power Distribution Companies within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act, particularly to fasten the liability with a retrospective date. (24) In the light of the facts and circumstances analyzed above, it is clear that the PF authorities failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the persons engaged by the petitioners / PAAs for execution of the work entrusted to PAAs under the agreements executed between PAAs and Power Distribution Companies are the employees of the Power Distribution Companies within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. Conclusion: For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that under no circumstances the petitioners can be construed as contractors in the context of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. Consequently the persons engaged by them who are executing the work of the Power Distribution Companies do not come within the definition of the employees within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act. (25) Accordingly, the impugned orders which suffered from patent error of fact and law are unsustainable and are hereby set aside. (26) However, keeping in view the specific undertaking given by the petitioners before this Court that they are agreeable to make the contributions to the Provident Fund for the persons executing the work of APEPDCL and APCPDCL from 01.04.2009 onwards, it is made clear that the order in these writ petitions shall be confined only with regard to the past liability of the petitioners i.e., upto 31.03.2009. Subject to the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. No costs.