Appeal filed against Single Judge's order quashing Provident Fund Commissioner's notification covering respondent computer consultancy firm. Court interpreted Notification's examples as illustrative and held respondent's services did not constitute 'expert services' under the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/6
APP/523/2010
BDPPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.523 OF 2010 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1246 OF 2005
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others
…..Appellants.
V/s
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
….. Respondents.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
Mr. K.M. Naik, Senior Counsel alongwith Ms Priyanka Patil for the Respondent.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: 8th September, 2016
P.C.:- ( Per V.M. Kanade, J. )
2/6
APP/523/2010
3/6
APP/523/2010
dated 17/05/1971 and therefore the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were applicable to the establishment of the Respondent/Original Petitioner with effect from 31/05/1971. Respondent filed its reply to the letter of Appellant No.1 and thereafter Appellant No.1 passed an order dated 18/06/1993 and held that the services rendered by the Respondent/original Petitioner fell in the category of “expert services”. Respondent challenged this order by filing Writ Petition in this Court. The matter was remanded. The matter thereafter travelled back and forth from the High Court to the Commissioner and ultimately by an impugned order dated 20/09/2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/original Petitioner.
4/6
APP/523/2010
learned Single Judge and also through the Notification dated 17/05/1971. He submitted that Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is a social legislation for providing economic security to the working class in their old age and also for providing financial support to the members of their family. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the services rendered by the Respondent/original Petitioner did not fall under the definition of “expert services”. He submitted that if the Notification is read as a whole, it would reveal that after the words “such as” and after giving three types of establishments, Notification mentioned the following words viz. “and the establishment rendering expert services, and employing twenty or more persons”. He submitted that the case of the Respondent/original Petitioner would be covered by the said clause. He submitted that the Notification should be read in its natural and ordinary course to mean that it covers all establishments rendering expert services.
5/6
APP/523/2010
“(To be published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (1) of the Gazette of India)
Government of India Ministry of labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment)
Dated New Delhi, the 17 May, 1971 27 Vaisakha, 1893 SE.
NOTIFICATION
G.S.R. __________________, In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (10 of 1952), the Central Government hereby specifies that with effect from the 31st May 1971, the said Act, shall apply to every establishment rendering expert services such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts, and pay roll irregularities to factories and establishments on certain terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the establishment and the establishment rendering expert services, and employing twenty or more persons.
(No.4/7/I/66-PF-II) Sd/(Daligit Singh)
(Under Secretary to the Govt. of India)”
6/6
APP/523/2010
amendment would apply to every establishment rendering expert services and thereafter mentioning the following words “such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts, and pay roll irregularities to factories and establishments” and followed by the words “and the establishment rendering expert services, and employing twenty or more persons”.
(MRS SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the establishment of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. falls within the purview of the Notification dated 17/05/1971.
Whether the words 'such as' and the descriptions following them in the Notification are to be interpreted as illustrative or exhaustive.
Whether the Notification applies only to establishments employing twenty or more persons providing the listed expert services.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
V. M. Kanade
Swapna Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
