Interior decoration with minor civil works is not covered by the EPF Act absent construction activity.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 26 September 2022 assessing provident-fund dues of ₹87,66,647 for the period from 5 April 1992 to September 2008 under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”)

The establishment had been covered under the Act from 15 February 2006, initially under the classification “Architect,” and the authorities later shifted the coverage date back to 5 April 1992 based on records including the establishment’s memorandum of association and purchase orders

After an earlier remand directing that notice and an opportunity to respond be provided, the authority passed the impugned order

The petitioner maintained that it carried on interior-decoration work, not architectural or building-and-construction activity covered by the Act, and that the workers had been supplied by contractors

1. Whether the petitioner’s interior-decoration business was an establishment covered by the EPF Act under the relevant scheduled or scheme classification.

2. Whether the authority’s assessment of provident-fund dues for the period from 5 April 1992 to September 2008 could stand when the alleged covered activity had not been established.

Section 1(3)(b) of the EPF Act provides for application of the Act to establishments within the classes specified under the Act and the applicable scheme.

The authority relied on the relevant coverage classification, including the scheme entry concerning the building-and-construction industry and the classification “Architect”.

The Court considered whether the establishment’s actual business brought it within that coverage; it treated the company’s stated objects as insufficient, by themselves, to establish that the relevant covered work was actually carried on.

Section 7A was the basis for the authority’s determination of dues.

The Court found that the record did not establish that the petitioner designed buildings, constructed buildings, or otherwise carried on work falling within the relevant coverage classification.

It considered the “Architect” classification unsupported by the evidence and observed that the purchase orders appeared to relate to interior decoration rather than building construction or architectural work.

The Court also accepted that interior-decoration work may include minor civil work, but concluded that this did not, on the facts, bring the establishment within the Act.

Accordingly, the coverage premise underlying the Section 7A assessment was not made out.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 26 September 2022, allowed the writ petition, and disposed of any connected applications.