BHARATHIYA VIKAS TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "ANANTH" PERAMPALLI SHIVALLI, UDUPI -576102, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (C AND R), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HIGHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER - Trust has sought for quashing of the order passed by the first respondent dated 31st October 2005 produced at Annexure 10; the order dated 4/10.10.2006 passed by the second respondent produced at Annexure 'M'; the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No. 594(6)/2007 dated 05.07.2011 produced at Annexure 'R' and for quashing of the consequential order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 23.08.2011 produced at Annexure 'S'. The facts, which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 15.10.2003 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, produced at Annexure 'F' inter alia alleging that the petitioner - Trust is running an educational institution and has engaged more than 19 employees with effect from: 01.04.2001 and as such, the said establishment is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme (for short 'the scheme'). However, the Trust has failed to make the contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show cause.

(2.) THE said show cause notice was suitably replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the original authority passed the order dated 31.10.2005 as per Annexure 'K' inter alia observing that the petitioner - Trust is liable to pay Rs. 6,45,946/ -towards provident fund contribution and penalty etc., within 15 days along with interest under Section 7Q of the Act and damage under Section 14B of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a charitable Trust. It is running an educational institution, the charitable educational institutions are not covered under the scheme. The Provident Fund Organization had issued a show cause notice only in respect of educational institutions run by the petitioner. As such, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the show cause notice were vitiated as the educational institutions are exempted. Nextly, he contended that the persons working in the Trust are all retired bank employees, have attained age of 55 years or 58 years. Thereafter, they have been working in the petitioner - Trust for honorarium. The definition of the Provident Fund Scheme does not include retired employees and there was no need to make any contribution in respect of such employees. Further, it was contended that even if they are treated as employees of the Trust, the number of employees of the Trust does not come under the purview of the Scheme. However, neither the original authority nor the appellate authority has considered this aspect of the matter, as a result, both these authorities have held that the petitioner - Trust is liable to make contribution of provident fund.