APFC EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANISATION Vs. PROFOLAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition filed by the APFC Employees' Provident Funds Organisation assails the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. Under the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the respondent-employer was allowed, thereby setting aside the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('EPF Act' for short) directing the respondent to deposit the provident fund dues of its ex-employee Ms. Asha Nangia. The petitioner also assails the order dated 30.01.2017 whereby its belated review petition was rejected by the Tribunal.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that one Ms. Asha Nangia, who had worked with the respondent organisation between 21.03.2000 to 31.03.2008 as a Front Office Manager, on 17.08.2008 made a complaint to it alleging therein that even though she had worked in the respondent organisation for almost 8 years, she was not made a member of the Provident Fund Scheme and was therefore, deprived of the benefits of the provident fund. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent and after considering its reply passed an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act on 10.07.2009 directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.1,35,970/- towards provident fund dues of Ms.Asha Nangia. Upon a review petition being filed by respondent, the said amount was reduced by the petitioner to Rs.1,17,089/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the petitioner's aforesaid direction to deposit the amount, the respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal. The primary contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that Ms. Nangia was an excluded employee in terms of Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme') as she was always drawing salary higher than the prescribed limit and was, therefore, rightly not enrolled as a member of Provident Fund Scheme. In support of its aforesaid contention, the respondent relied on Ms.Nangia's own complaint, wherein she had herself categorically stated that her salary from 21.03.2000 was Rs.7,200/- whereafter it kept on increasing from time to time. Based on this position emerging from the record that Ms. Nangia was drawing a salary of Rs.7200/- in the year 2000 which was higher than the exemption limit prescribed in Section 2(f) of the Scheme, the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.08.2011 allowed the respondent's appeal.