JSS MAHAVIDYA PEETHA Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's institution was established in the year 1959. The petitioner has also established several educational institution which are independent and autonomous. Each institution is independent and they are governed by the provision of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (in short 'EPF and 'MP Act' or 'the Act'). They have given a separate code number under Sec. 13(b) of the Act and since then they are independent of its own. For the purpose of applicability of the said order, these institutions have been allowed the benefit of infancy period under Sec. 13(1) of the Act. The employees of these institutions who are governed under Sec. 16(1 )(b) of the Act are excluded and employees were not governed under provisions of EPF and MP Act. The Government of India, by notification S O. No. 986 dated 19.02.1982, extended the provisions of EPF Act and schemes framed thereunder to six categories of these educational, technical and training institutions with effect from 06.03.1982.

(2.) This was the subject matter of Annexe - A dated 27.09.1996, in which it has been ordered that EPF and MP Act is applicable to J.S.S. Dental College. It is engaged in the activity of imparting medical education and it is converable under the provisions of EPF Act with effect from 14.8.1987 after completion of infancy period of three years from the date of its starting. This order was passed on 27.8.1996 and the petitioner has complied the said order by extending the benefit to the employees who are governed under the provisions of EPF Act.

(3.) Notwithstanding the same, without having any power, learned counsel submits that the respondent has passed one more order reviewing the earlier order directing the petitioner that the petitioner's institution is governed as per Government of India notification S.O. No. 986 dated 19.02.1992 with effect from 6.1982. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also governed under the provisions of EPF Act from 01.09.1997 and that was the state as per Annexe - A and the subsequent review order is arbitrary in nature. In support of the same, learned counsel referred to the judgement reported in ILLJ 1998 Page 34 and also referred to the judgement in AIR 1970 SC 127 The judgement referred in ILLJ 1998 SC Page 34 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co., Ltd., the Apex Court in paragraph 4 has observed thus: