JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in the order passed by the first respondent herein in A.T.A.No. 651(13)/2009 dt. 15.03.2010, which was received by the petitioner on 03.05.2010 and quash the same.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the first respondent in A.T.A.No. 651(13)/2009. 2. According to the petitioner, their establishment is doing the business of stewarding, transporting and other connected works by employing 136 employees and all the employees have been covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as” E.P.F Act, 1952”). It is their case that they have been prompt in making EPF contributions for all their employees without committing any default. 3. They would further submit that they have been shocked and surprised to receive a notice dated 30.12.2008 from the second respondent, wherein the second respondent has alleged that 9 persons were the petitioner's employees for whom EPF contributions were not made by the petitioner/Management. The petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 16.02.2009 stating that out of the nine persons only three persons namely T.Vijayan, B.Senthil and K.Chadrakanth were recruited as apprentice/trainees as per the Model Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner establishment and remaining 6 persons were total strangers. According to the petitioner/Management in the said reply, the petitioner has also enclosed application forms from the apprentices, appointment orders, attendance/stipend register in respect of apprentices, copies of general ledger and profit and loss account statement to the second respondent. 4. According to the petitioner/Management inspite of accepting the contentions of the petitioner, the second respondent without applying his mind passed an order dated 28.08.2009 directing the petitioner to pay the contributions for the apprentices and the strangers. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner/Management preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal by its order dated 15.03.2010. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner/Management has preferred this instant writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent before this Court, wherein they have stated that only after inspection of the business premises by the Enforcement Officers, it came to the knowledge that for nine employees, EPF contributions were not made by the petitioner/Management. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner/Management has preferred this instant writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent before this Court, wherein they have stated that only after inspection of the business premises by the Enforcement Officers, it came to the knowledge that for nine employees, EPF contributions were not made by the petitioner/Management. According to them, despite giving several opportunities to the petitioner/Management to produce records like trial balance, draft profit and loss account, balance sheet, date book, ledger cash book including cash payment vouchers, the petitioner/Management failed to produce the same. According to them, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent is in accordance with law and the petitioner/Management is liable to pay E.P.F contributions for the named nine employees employed by the petitioner/Management. 6. It is also their case that even three employees named by the petitioner/Management are not apprentices but they are their regular employees. According to them, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner/Management to prove that the said employees were infact only apprentices. Further, according to them, any standing orders to claim exemption for apprentices under Section 2(f)(ii) of the E.P.F. Act 1952 will have to be proved by the competent authority i.e., Labour Department. In the instant case, the Model Standing Orders for the petitioner/Management has not been approved by the Labour Department. 7. Heard Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Murali Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. It has been the consistent stand of the petitioner that the alleged nine persons are not their employees, eventhough they have admitted that out of the nine persons, three of them were engaged by them only as apprentices. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before this Court, the Model Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner/Management issued under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) rule, 1947, Schedule -I. He in particular referred to definition of apprentice as found in Rule 2(g), which reads as follows: “g. Apprentice is one who is engaged essentially in learning any skilled work provided that the period of such learning shall not exceed on year for those with prescribed technical qualification and three years for others”. 9. 9. In the case on hand, three persons who were engaged as apprentice by the petitioner/Management do not possess any technical qualification and they were engaged by the petitioner/Management only in the year 2007 and 2008 respectively. The E.P.F contributions demanded by the respondents is between April 2007 to November 2008. Therefore the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the E.P.F contributions are not liable to be made for the three persons who were engaged as apprentices by following the Model Standing Orders issued under Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) rule, 1947, Schedule -I, will have to be accepted by this Court. Insofar as the remaining six persons are concerned, it has been the consistent stand of the petitioner/Management that they are total strangers and not their employees and therefore, they are not in a position to produce any records relating to the them. Even according to the respondents, only when the Enforcement Officers visited the petitioner's business premises on 09.09.2008, it was brought to their knowledge that the named nine persons were the employees of the petitioner/Management. They have also not produced any records/documents to prove that the named nine persons are indeed the employees of the petitioner/Management. Instead they have called upon the petitioner/Management to produce the records relating to those nine persons which has been categorically denied by the petitioner/Management to be their employees. Further, in the case on hand, it is admitted by both the counsels that till date even after the lapse of more than 10 years, no claim has been made by any of the nine persons including the apprentices engaged by the petitioner/Management. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore and Central Aercanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Co-Operative Ltd, Mangalore reported in 2006(1) L.L.N.529, in which it has held that if the Standing Orders were not at the relevant point of time certified in terms of Section 12(a) of the Standing Orders, Model Standing Orders are deemed to be applicable. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: “9. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: “9. From a bare reading of S.12A it is manifestly clear that until Standing Orders are finally certified and come into operation, the prescribed Model Standing Orders shall be deemed to be adopted in the concerned establishment. The Model Standing Orders prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules 1946 (in short the Central Rules) are contained in Schedule -I to the said Rules. Standing Order No.2 thereof classified workmen as follows: (1) Permanent (2) Probationers (3) Badlis (4) temporary (5) casual (6) apprentices 'Apprentice' is defined in Cl.(g) of Standing Order No.2 as follows: An 'Apprentice' is a learner who is paid an allowance during the period of training. The Apprentices Act defines an 'apprentice' as follows: “2(aa) 'apprentice means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship”. 10. In the present case, admittedly the Standing Orders were not at the relevant point of time certified. Therefore in terms of S.12A of the Standing Orders are deemed to be applicable. Section 2(f) of the Act defines an employee to include an apprentice but at the same time makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders. Under the Model Standing Order an apprentice is described as a learner who is paid allowance during the period of training. 11. In the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore the trainees were “apprentices” engaged under the “Standing Orders” of the establishment. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Model Standing Order issued under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) rule, 1947, Schedule -I are applicable to the facts of the instant case and therefore being apprentices, even for three persons, the petitioner/Management is not liable to make E.P.F contributions. 12. The authorities below have not considered all these aspects before coming to the conclusion, but instead have blindly accepted the Enforcement Officer's report that the petitioner/Management has not paid the E.P.F contributions for the alleged nine persons. 12. The authorities below have not considered all these aspects before coming to the conclusion, but instead have blindly accepted the Enforcement Officer's report that the petitioner/Management has not paid the E.P.F contributions for the alleged nine persons. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities below have passed an erroneous order which requires to be set aside by this Court. 13. In the result, the impugned order dated 15.03.2010, passed by the first respondent in A.T.A.No. 651(13)/2009 confirming the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the second respondent is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.