JUDGMENT K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is a wholly owned Government of India Undertaking engaged in refining and marketing of petroleum products. Inter alia, the petitioner deals with Liquid Petroleum Gas (for brevity ‘LPG’) and has LPG bottling plants across the country. LPG is sold to the customers in cylinders and due to the explosive nature of the product, it is statutorily prescribed that testing of cylinders, has to be carried out once in ten years, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Controller of Explosives. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner invites tenders from notified establishments, having the facility to carry on such statutory test and having been accredited to so carry on such testing. 2. The 3rd respondent was successful in the tender floated by the petitioner and an agreement was entered into as is evidenced by Ext.P1 between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to carry out the statutory testing of cylinders. The period of contract as per Ext.P1 was for three years from the date of work order and the work order as per the agreement is produced as Ext.P2. The agreement, Ext.P1, as also the work order specifically award the contract of statutory testing of LPG cylinders (14.2 Kgs and 19 Kgs.) of the Quilon Bottling Plant. The petitioner is aggrieved by the 7A enquiry initiated by the respondent Organization and the order passed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity ‘EPF Act’) as evidenced by Ext.P6. Ext.P6 was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P8. 3. The petitioner contends that the contract entered into with the 3rd respondent is not for engagement of any workmen to carry out any activity within its premises, but a contract for statutory testing of the LPG cylinders. The 3rd respondent is an accredited Organization who has been issued with a licence by the ‘Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization’ under the Government of India for the specific purpose of establishing and carrying on testing of LPG cylinders which approval has been granted under Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner does not have any supervisory powers with respect to the testing of cylinders nor does it in any manner regulate the testing procedure which is prescribed under the statute. The petitioner does not have any supervisory powers with respect to the testing of cylinders nor does it in any manner regulate the testing procedure which is prescribed under the statute. The employees engaged by the 3rd respondent also does not have any relationship with the petitioner nor is the petitioner in the status of a Principal with respect to the employees of the 3rd respondent. 4. Appeals were filed from Ext.P6, both by the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected, whereas the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent regarding coverage under Section 7A of the EPF Act was allowed respectively by Exts.P8 and P9 order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Organization would contend that the petitioner is in the status of the Principal and is entitled to ensure contributions under the welfare legislations to be paid to the duly constituted authorities under such welfare enactments. 6. It is very evident that Ext.P1 Award of contract, is in the nature of an award of work of statutory testing of cylinders; which the petitioner is bound to statutorily carry out, once in ten years. The 3rd respondent as has been noticed above, has a separate licence for carrying on the work and it is from such accredited establishments that the 3rd respondent was selected on the basis of public tender, to carry on the work of statutory testing of cylinders. 7. The petitioner does not have any control over the work carried on by the 3rd respondent nor can the petitioner be said to be in the status of a Principal with respect to the employees of the 3rd respondent. In this context, the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(f) of the Act is relevant and is extracted herein below: “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 form 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). 8. 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). 8. Looking at Ext.P1 contract and Ext.P2 work order, the activity to be carried on under the contract and the work order is the testing of cylinders. Ext.P6 proceeds on the basis that the provisions of paragraph 31 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 mandates the Principal employer to pay the contribution payable by himself and also on behalf of an individual employed by him directly or by or through a contractor. The petitioner does not have a contract of employment with the 3rd respondent. As is noticed above, the 3rd respondent has only been awarded a contract for statutory testing of LPG cylinders. The 3rd respondent if at all has to be covered under the Act, necessarily proceedings will have to be issued against the 3rd respondent and not against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent obviously does not employ more than 20 employees; factually not even ten employees and hence, is not covered under the Act. The assessment under Section 7A has been passed by clubbing the establishment of the 3rd respondent with that of the petitioner. 9. In the present case, the order under Section 7A, directing payment of contributions by the petitioner, as well as the 3rd respondent, were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the challenge made by the petitioner and allowed the challenge made by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent’s challenge was with respect to the coverage under Section 7A. If such coverage is not applicable to the 3rd respondent; necessarily, there can be no contribution payable by the petitioner as the Principal employer of the employees of the 3rd respondent. The device employed by the authority under Section 7A is to club the establishments of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent; which is not permissible under the statute. 10. It is to be specifically noticed that the respondent Organization has not chosen to challenge Ext.P9 order by which the appellate authority has found that the 3rd respondent does not employ sufficient number of persons to be covered under the EPF Act. 10. It is to be specifically noticed that the respondent Organization has not chosen to challenge Ext.P9 order by which the appellate authority has found that the 3rd respondent does not employ sufficient number of persons to be covered under the EPF Act. As has been found, there can be no clubbing of establishments merely because one establishment has been granted a contract by another. Section 2(f) specifically includes only persons employed by or through a contractor. The contract between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is not a contract of employment of persons. The contract, is for the specific work of statutory testing of LPG cylinders and the consideration is clearly relatable to the number of cylinders tested and not the employees engaged by the 3rd respondent. This Court in coming to such conclusion, is fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Baby Francis (2008 (II) LLJ 805 (Ker.)), wherein this Court held so: “Employees employed by or through a contract is also covered if they are employed inside the factory premises or working outside the premises, but under the contract or supervision of the principal employer.” No such employment conferring the status of a principal employer on the petitioner can be garnered from the contract which is the subject matter of the above writ petition. The 3rd respondent is a totally different establishment from that of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P6 assessment and P8 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The parties are left to suffer their costs.