JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R. K. Verma, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as well as order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Varanasi issued in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 26.8.2011 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Allahabad. 3. Petitioner has submitted that he is a Regional Rural Bank sponsored by the Bank of Baroda and set up by the Government under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Originally the petitioner was known as Sultanpur Regional Rural Bank. However, the petitioner bank along with other Regional Rural Banks sponsored by the Bank of Baroda in U.P. was merged together into two new entities namely Baroda Eastern U.P. Gramin Bank and Baroda Western U.P. Gramin Bank vide notification dated 23.2.2006 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act. Thereafter vide Notification dated 31.3.2008 the above two Gramin Banks were merged into Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank by the Central Government. 4. He has submitted that the work of cleaning of the premises in the instant case is done by the persons engaged as part time sweepers and are paid consolidated amount on monthly basis by the Branch Manager of the Bank and they are working only for a period of half to one hour per day and such persons were not restrained to work elsewhere and are in fact employed to do similar or other work in other establishments. On the basis of above facts the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is not liable to deposit any money towards its contribution in regard to such persons engaged as sweepers by the Bank as per the Provident Fund Act. His main contention is that such part time sweepers cannot be termed as bank employees because though they were doing the work of sweeping but the same cannot be said to be employees of the Bank within the meaning of definition of Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. His main contention is that such part time sweepers cannot be termed as bank employees because though they were doing the work of sweeping but the same cannot be said to be employees of the Bank within the meaning of definition of Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 5. A complaint was filed by the Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Union with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bareilly that part time sweepers employed by the Bank were not being given benefits of Provident Funds Act. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner directed the petitioner to provide details about of engagements of such part time sweepers since 1.6.2001. The Bank denying the allegations made in the said complaint stated that there was no post of sweepers in the Bank and said part time sweepers were not employees of the Bank. Due to the fact that they were not the employees of the Bank there was no statutory duties in relation to such part time persons as provided in Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952. The Bank further informed by means of the letter dated 2.12.2009 that in view of the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Bank Employees Unions and the Banks, such part time sweepers who do not work for more than six hours do not fall within the definition of "employees" and are not entitled to the benefit of the Provident Fund contribution. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter dated 10.4.2013 issued notice to the Bank for commencing proceedings under Section 7A of the Act holding such part time Safai Karmachari are employees of the Bank under the Act and issued directions to deposit the statutory dues in respect of such part time workers. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.2013 of the Regional Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeal before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of the order dated 4.7.2011 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that even part time employees are considered employees of the establishment, therefore, the part time sweepers are the employees of the Bank and the Bank is liable to pay the provident fund dues under the Act and the scheme. Vide order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Allahabad the petitioner was ordered to deposit the dues within fifteen days. 7. Vide order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Allahabad the petitioner was ordered to deposit the dues within fifteen days. 7. The order of the appellate tribunal has been assailed before us in the present writ petition. Subsequent to the order passed by appellate tribunal recovery proceedings under Section-7(A), 8(b) and 18 (g) of the Act were commenced by the Commissioner, Bareilly which have also been impugned in the instant writ petition. The appellate tribunal while deciding the controversy in question has considered the meaning of the term "employee" as given under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act as well as pronouncements of various High Courts and concluded that the definition of Section 2(f) is extremely wide so as to include even the petitioners who are working in connection with the work of appellant establishment and are being paid wages for the same. After the aforesaid consideration, he has held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and thereby dismissed the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that they are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act read with Provident Fund Act and it does not make a difference whether they are working for one hour or for 8 hours as the definition of employees as stated in Employees Provident Fund Act, does not make any such distinction as the definition being extreme wide and being a beneficial piece of legislation and as such a liberal interpretation has to be taken so as to include Safai Karmachari within the ambit and scope of the Act and they are entitled to the benefit of Provident Fund. 9. Learned counsel appearing for Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank Employees Union has submitted that bipartite agreement also cannot restrict the meaning, scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the Provident Funds Act and its members are entitled to the benefit under the Act. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The seminal question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Safai Karmachari working in the establishment of the petitioner and working for few hours each day and receiving wages therefor are entitled to be counted under the definition of "employees" under Provident Funds Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The seminal question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Safai Karmachari working in the establishment of the petitioner and working for few hours each day and receiving wages therefor are entitled to be counted under the definition of "employees" under Provident Funds Act. The admitted position which emerges is that Safai Karmachari have been engaged by the Branch Managers and they are working for half to one hour per day totalling to about three to six hours in a week and even as per the petitioner himself they are paid consolidated amount on monthly basis though they have stated that they are free to work elsewhere but no assertion has been made that they are, in fact, working anywhere else. The definition of employee given under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds Act is quoted as under:- "2. Definition: (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 engage under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment." 12. The definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Act is inclusive definition and has wide scope so as to include the persons engaged either directly or indirectly in employment of the establishment. It will be noticed that the terms of definition are very wide including not only the persons directly employed or even through a contractor. 13. It has been submitted by the petitioner that Safai Karmachari have been engaged on local level by the Branch Managers and undoubtedly they are receiving wages for the work they are doing in the premises of the petitioner. Applying the provisions of Section 2(f) to the facts of the present case it is clear that the Safai Karmachari who have been engaged by the petitioner for the purpose of cleaning the establishment for which work they are being paid wages. Would be entitled to be covered under the definition of "employee". Applying the provisions of Section 2(f) to the facts of the present case it is clear that the Safai Karmachari who have been engaged by the petitioner for the purpose of cleaning the establishment for which work they are being paid wages. Would be entitled to be covered under the definition of "employee". The work which they are doing is of regular nature as cleaning of the Branches is done by them on each date on which the Branch is opened. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is only due to some emergency that these workers are engaged and subsequently they are discontinued from their engagements as they continue to give service of cleaning of the premises regularly. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the Employees Provident Fund Act in the case of M/s P.M. Patel and sons and others Vs. Union of India and others (1986) 1 Supreme Court Cases 32 has held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:- "10. In the context of the conditions and the circumstances set out earlier in which the home workers of a single manufacturer go about their work, including the receiving of raw material, rolling the beedis at home and delivering them to the manufacturer subject to the right of rejection there is sufficient evidence of the requisite degree of control and supervision for establishing the relationship of master and servant between the manufacturer and the home worker. It must be remembered that the work of rolling beedis is not of a sophisticated nature, requiring control and supervision at the time when the work is done. It is a simple operation which, as practice has shown, has been performed satisfactorily by thousands of illiterate workers. It is a task which can be performed by young and old, men and women, with equal facility and it does not require a high order of skill. In the circumstances, the right of rejection can constitute in itself an effective degree of supervision and control. We may point out that there is evidence to show that the rejection takes place in the presence of the home worker. That factor, however, plays a merely supportive role in determining the existence of the relationship of the master and servant. In the circumstances, the right of rejection can constitute in itself an effective degree of supervision and control. We may point out that there is evidence to show that the rejection takes place in the presence of the home worker. That factor, however, plays a merely supportive role in determining the existence of the relationship of the master and servant. The petitioners point out that there is no element of personal service in beedi rolling and that it is open to a home worker to get the work done by one or the other member of his family at home. The element of personal service, it seems to us, is of little significance when the test of control and supervision lies in the right of rejection. 11. In our opinion, the home workers are "employees" within the definition of contained in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. " In another case of Officer -in-Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office and another Vs. Godavari Garments Limited (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 149, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the ratio laid down in aforesaid case of M/s P.M. Patel and sons and others (supra) and further considered various judgments it has been held as under in paragraphs 9.8 to 11 as under:- "9.8. The EPF Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation which was enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the workmen. This Court in Daily Partap v. regl. Provident Fund Commr., held that: (SCC p.98, para 9) "9....It has to be kept in view that the Act in question, is a beneficial social welfare legislation meant for the protection of weaker sections of society, namely, workmen who had to eke out their livelihood from the meagre wages they receive after toiling hard for the same." Hence, the provisions under the EPF Act have to be interpreted in a manner which is beneficial to the workmen." 9.9. In the present case, the women workers were certainly employed for wages in connection with the work of the respondent Company. The definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) is an inclusive definition, and includes workers who are engaged either directly or indirectly in connection with the work of the establishment, and are paid wages. 10. In the present case, the women workers were certainly employed for wages in connection with the work of the respondent Company. The definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) is an inclusive definition, and includes workers who are engaged either directly or indirectly in connection with the work of the establishment, and are paid wages. 10. In the present case, the women workers were directly engaged by the management in connection with the work of the respondent Company, which was set up as a ready made garments industry in Marathwada. The women workers were paid wages on per-piece basis for the services rendered. Merely because the women workers were permitted to do the work offsite, would not take away their status as employees of the respondent Company. 11. The respondent Company placed reliance on this Court's decision in CESC Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, wherein it was held that : "14. In the textual sense 'supervision' of the principal employer or his agent is on 'work' at the places envisaged and the word 'work' can neither he construed so broadly to be the final act of acceptance or rejection of work, nor so narrowly so as to be supervision at all limes and at each and every step of the work. A harmonious construction alone would help carry out the purpose of the Act, which would mean moderating the two extremes. When the employee is put to work under the eye and gaze of the principal employer, or his agent, where he can be watched secretly, accidentally, or occasionally, while the work is in progress, so as to scrutinise the quality thereof and to detect faults therein, as also put to timely remedial measures by directions given, finally leading to the satisfactory completion and acceptance of the work, that would in our view be supervision for the purposes of Section 2(9) of the Act." 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sri T. S. Hariharan, 1971 (2) Supreme Court Cases 68 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether employment of few persons for a short period on account of some pressing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company, would be held to be employment under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act. Sri T. S. Hariharan, 1971 (2) Supreme Court Cases 68 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether employment of few persons for a short period on account of some pressing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company, would be held to be employment under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act. Clearly, the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that Safai Karmachari are employees for short period on account of pressing necessity or due to some temporary emergency. 15. Another case relied upon by petitioner counsel is in the matter of C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manger, UCO Bank and others (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 653 with regard to binding nature of bipartite agreement. The controversy in the set of facts of this case is related to promotion of Assistant Manager in UCO bank wherein he has relied upon the bipartite agreement. It has been held in paragraph 10 that bipartite agreements are binding upon both the bank and the appellant. The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable form the issue raised by the petitioner in present set of facts. 16. The Tribunal while holding that Safai Karmachari are "employees" has considered the case of M/s Ahmadabad Cooling Printing Ltd. Vs. Rehmat Ali where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "where the management engaged the sweeper who worked twice or thrice a week, the night watchman who kept watch in the other shops in the locality and the gardner who came for work 10 days a month will be deemed as employee in order to attract the applicability of the EPF Act." 17. In the light of above, it is clear that the Safai Karmachari are employed with the petitioner-Bank for the purpose of cleaning their premises on regular basis. The petitioner establishment is a regular and continuous establishment and admittedly the Safai Karmachari are being paid wages on monthly basis for the work done by them. In the light of above, it is clear that the Safai Karmachari are employed with the petitioner-Bank for the purpose of cleaning their premises on regular basis. The petitioner establishment is a regular and continuous establishment and admittedly the Safai Karmachari are being paid wages on monthly basis for the work done by them. The bipartite agreement cannot restrict the width, ambit and scope of statutory enactment and despite the provisions being made by bipartite agreement the benefit of provident fund would be available only to those employees who work for more than six hours a day, cannot restrict the scope of the persons like the Safai Karmachari who are otherwise covered by the definition of employees as provided under Section 2-F of the Act 18. For determination as to whether Safai Karmachari fall within the definition of Section 2 (f) only the meaning given therein would be relevant and the argument of the petitioner -Bank cannot be accepted and the width, ambit and scope cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the employer to reduce the same even if it is by means of an agreement or consent or by any other instrument. No evidence was led by the petitioner that Safai Karmachari are also employed in any other establishment nor could the prove this before the authority or appellate tribunal. 19. After due consideration of the issues involved, I am of the considered opinion that Safai Karmachari are employed by the management of the branches and the management has full control on them and they are paid wages regularly on the basis of which master and servant relationship exists between the Bank and Safai Karmachari and they would be 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund Act and are entitled all the benefits as such. 20. No other argument or fact was placed by the petitioners to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 21. Having considered the arguments of counsels and the order of Tribunal, I do not find nay infirmity with the order of Tribunal. The petition being without merits is hereby dismissed.