LAWS(KAR)-1997-8-64

HORTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CHITTAHALLI COORG Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MANGALORE

Decided On August 01, 1997
HORTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,CHITTAHALLI, COORG Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Indian horticultural research institute has its units at chittahalli and gonikoppal in kodagu district. They are called research stations, but, there are fruit growing trees therein, which according to the said institution, are for the purpose of research. The said two units are the writ petitioners herein. By the orders at annexures-b and c impugned herein, not only that the respondent sought to cover the said two units at chittahalli and gonikoppal under the Provisions of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('act' for short), but, also to direct making contribution of specific sum as specified in the said two annexures.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent is that, though the institution as such, viz. , Indian institute of horticultural research, came to be covered under the act by virtue of notification issued under Section l (3) (b) of the act with effect from 6-3-1982 as per item 48 of appendix-i to the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952 ('scheme' for short), the places at which fruit bearing trees were being grown by the institute concerned at chittahalli and gonikoppal, though for research purpose, the purpose not being relevant for the Provisions of the Act, were however 'fruits orchards' within the meaning of entry 36 of the said appendix-i to the scheme which came to be entered with effect from 31-12-1974, and that, therefore, the said two stations chittahalli and gonikoppal, had to be necessarily covered with effect from 31-12-1974.

(3.) THE petitioners, however, urged that the institution as suchis covered from 6-3-1982 and that, what are being there at chittahalli and gonikoppal are research stations and not fruit orchards within the meaning of the notification mentioned at entry 36 of appendix-i of the scheme. The further contention of the petitioners is that the respondent has sought to cover the casual employees also, which is not correct.