An appeals against an order allowing a schools society’s exemption from the 1952 EPF Act under the Maharashtra Education Rules. The High Court applied Supreme Court precedent to dismiss the appeal, holding the tribunal and single judge correctly granted full exemption.
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
LPA293.11(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 293/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.550/1999(D)
1] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 132-A, Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
2] The Enforcement Officer, O/o Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 132-A Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
Sanjay Memorial Teachers Education Society, Hinganghat, District Wardha. Through its Secretary
....... RESPONDENT
Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent sole.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR and G.A.SANAP, JJ. THE ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 22.11.2021 THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON :10.12.2021
JUDGMENT (PER A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
This letters patent appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent raises a challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.550/1999. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge was pleased to uphold the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
2
LPA293.11(J)
Tribunal-Tribunal dated 11.09.1998 resulting in dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the appellants herein.
3 LPA293.11(J)
Writ Petition No.2690/1996 but since the Tribunal was constituted for entertaining appeals, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal. The Society thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal after referring to the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 as well as Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1981’) held that the schools being duly recognized by the State Government were under its control and hence they stood excluded from the operation of the Act of 1952. The appeal was accordingly allowed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication preferred Writ Petition No.550/1999 in this Court. The learned Single Judge after finding that there was regular deduction of provident fund for the employees of various schools run by the Education Society proceeded to hold in the context of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 alongwith Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 that the order passed by the Tribunal was legal and proper not requiring any interference. The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ petition on 19.07.2010. Being aggrieved the original petitioners have preferred this letters patent appeal.
4
LPA293.11(J)
August 1986 to September 1995 while the material on record indicated the steps taken under Rule 20 of the Rules 1981 after September 1995. He submits that the representatives of the Society having admitted that the provisions of the Act of 1952 were applicable to it could not be now permitted to take a contrary stand. It was his submission that even for seeking benefits as regards non-applicability of all provisions of the Act of 1952 there ought to be a specific exemption granted by the authorities under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952. The party seeking to take benefit of the aforesaid provision was required to point out existence of appropriate Scheme as contemplated by Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 and only thereafter would the exemption operate. A fact-finding enquiry by the authorities was necessary and exemption on this count was not automatic. There was no material before the Authority in the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952. New material was considered for the first time by the Tribunal and further material was then considered by the learned Single Judge as a result of which the impugned orders came to be passed. He therefore submitted that it was necessary to have a fact finding enquiry as to whether the institutions/schools run by the Society were entitled for exemption under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952. To substantiate his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 276 and Saraswati Construction Company vs. Central Board of Trustees 2010 LLR 684 to submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge and affirming the order passed by the Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
5
LPA293.11(J)
6
LPA293.11(J)
appellants the period of dispute for paying contribution was from August 1986 to September 1995. While replying to the said show cause notice, the Society stated that the schools in question were recognized by the State Government and except one school that was being run on no grant basis, the other schools were receiving grants from the State Government. After holding the provisions of the Act of 1952 to be applicable to the Society, it was directed to report compliance from 01.09.1986. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal preferred by the Society has referred to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules 1981 and has found that the schools being recognised by the State Government, the Education Society was entitled to claim exclusion/exemption under Section 16(1)((b) of the Act of 1952. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petition preferred by the appellants has referred to the decision in Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School (supra) and has found the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952. It was also noted that regular deduction of provident fund was being made as was stated in the affidavit dated 23.04.2009 filed by the Society. This affidavit was filed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the said writ petition.
7 LPA293.11(J)
was liable to pay contribution for these 16 part-time employees while according to the Education Society it was entitled to claim exemption under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952, in view of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981. This Court did not accept the stand of the Education Society and hence that judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After referring to the Notification dated 19.02.1982 which has also been relied in the present case, it was held that the Act of 1952 was applicable to all colleges and schools in the State subject to provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1952. After finding that the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) would not come to the aid of the Education Society therein, the applicability of Section 16(1) (b) of the Act of 1952 was considered. Reference was made to the decision in Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School (supra) and it was found that the Act of 1977 alongwith Rules of 1981 as well as Secondary Schools Code were a complete Code in themselves with regard to educational institutions and it was also indicative of the extent of exercise of substantive control by the State Government over such institutions. While doing so the aspect of administrative control as well as the aspect of recognition of educational institutions was taken into consideration. It was thus held that even if an establishment is covered by any one of the excepted category provided under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1952 then the provisions of that Act would have no application to the establishment as a whole and for all purposes. The contention that the Act of 1952 though not applicable to the establishment would nevertheless apply to the part-time employees was not accepted by holding that Section 16 did not envisage a concept of partial exemption from application of the provisions of the Act of 1952 as it operated qua the establishment for all purposes. Merely because the part-time employees were not eligible for benefits of the State
8
LPA293.11(J)
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the exemption status of the establishment acquired under Section 16 of the Act of 1952 would not cease or stand withdrawn automatically. An establishment being covered under any one of the excepted category under Section 16 of the Act of 1952, the officials empowered by that Act would have no authority to proceed against such establishment notwithstanding the fact that some of the employees were not eligible for the benefits under the State Contributory Provident Fund Scheme which governed the other employees of the establishment. The judgment of this Court holding otherwise was set aside.
We may note that a similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge in Balasaheb Dempurikar Vidhya Mandir, Umari (supra) while holding that with the introduction of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 the authorities under the Act of 1952 would not have jurisdiction to recover the provident fund dues in relation to an employee who has subscribed to the Contributory Provident Fund. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, we find that the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that by virtue of provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 read with Rule 20
9
LPA293.11(J)
of the Rules of 1981, the order passed under Section 7-A directing compliance from 1986 onwards was contrary to law. The learned Single Judge therefore did not commit any error by not interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal.
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the question involved in this writ petition would be solved to a great extent if the respondent produces the record showing that the payment was made and the subscription was paid under the Contributory Funds Rules (Bombay) as per the provisions of Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and since when the said contributions are made, on affidavit. The said affidavit may be filed before this Court within a period of three weeks from today.”..
Accordingly the list of employees covered by Rule 20 was placed on record. The appellants had an opportunity to counter the material placed on record by the Society pursuant to aforesaid directions. That opportunity however was not availed of. Hence, at this stage, such objection cannot be permitted to be raised. It is also found that in case of any failure on the part of the Education Society in not complying with the requirements of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981, the authorities under the Act of 1977 are competent to take appropriate action and seek compliance in that regard.
10
LPA293.11(J)
(G.A.SANAP, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S ANDURKAR Personal Assistant Signing Date: 10.12.2021 12:51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prohibition on jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(b) of the 1952 Act applies to all employees of a recognized educational institution despite the employers’ compliance with Rule 20.
Whether reconsideration of fresh material filed by the respondent in the writ petition by the High Court amounts to jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Ors.Referred¶22
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 276 · Who else cites this
Saraswati Construction Company vs. Central Board of TrusteesReferred¶22
Saraswati Construction Company vs. Central Board of Trustees 2010 LLR 684
Balasaheb Dempurikar Vidhya Mandir, Umari vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Referred¶25
Balasaheb Dempurikar Vidhya Mandir, Umari vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2017(3) Mh.L.J. 825 · Who else cites this
Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.Applied¶32
Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. (2017) 5 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The Enforcement Officer
Sanjay Memorial Teachers Education Society
A.S. Chandurkar
G.A. Sanap
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap
Parties & counsel
