SUNIL KUMAR Vs. RAJENDRA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the Manager of raghavananda Central School, Chirakkara, kollam, challenges Exhibit P-42 order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Eandr), Kerala, whereby the contention raised by the petitioner that the School is not covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it was established as a new school after it ceased to function, was rejected.

(2.) THE school in question is, a recognised school. It was established in 1985 by Anugraha mission Trust. It would appear that later one raghavan Pilfai became the owner of the property and Manager of the School. Raghavan pillai assigned the property consisting of the school as per registered assignment deeds dated march 25, 1994 and March 23, 1994, in favour of Rajendran Pillai and the petitioner (Exhibit r-2 (a) ). The name of the School was changed as Raghavandra Central School. The School was brought under the purview of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder with effect from june 1, 1994 provisionally. The proposal for coverage was submitted by C. A. Mathews on behalf of the Anugraha Mission Trust. When the ownership and name of the School and management of the School were changed and i the title came to vest in Raghavan Pillai, the coverage under the Act continued. Later, when raghavan Pillai transferred the property to rajendran Pillai and the petitioner, the coverage under the Act continued in the name of Rajendran Pillai.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner, as evidenced by Exhibit P-20 representation dated February 5, 2000, is that the School started functioning from 1994 and Rajendran Pillai was the manager. The management of the School was not a successful venture and he could not continue to run the School On May 6, 1997, the petitioner purchased the School and started functioning of the School as a new establishment. His further case is that he became the Manager of the School not as a "going concern". The petitioner contended that all the employees and teachers are new entrants. He stated that there are only 18 employees and, therefore, the School is not covered under the act. He also disclaimed any liability to pay contribution as provided under the Act.