ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DT. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P6 orders, to the extent the respondents hold that the petitioner is liable to remit the necessary contribution under the Employees Provident Fund Act and Rules for the period from 2/2009 to 11/2015 in respect of the 4th respondent employee of the petitioner. On a perusal of the averments in the writ petition, it is seen that Ext.P3 order is not one that pertains to the contribution to be made in respect of the 4th respondent and is a determination order in respect of certain other employees of the petitioner's academy. The challenge against the said order cannot therefore be entertained in the absence of the affected persons in the party array. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially against Ext.P6 order to the extent it holds the petitioner liable to make contribution in respect of the 4th respondent. Ext.P6 order is impugned by the petitioner, on the ground that, the decision therein is flawed inasmuch as the pay of the 4th respondent during the relevant period was more than Rs. 6,500/- per month, and therefore, she would be covered under the definition of excluded employee for the purposes of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the 4th respondent was an excluded employee during the relevant period, no contribution had to be effected under the EPF Act and Scheme in relation to the 4th respondent. As already noted, by Ext.P6 order, the said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent, who proceeded to direct the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs. 1,56,715/- to the EPF account of the 4th respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents and as also 4th respondent in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the stand taken is that the petitioner himself had accepted that the contributions in respect of the 4th respondent were due and payable, and this fact is recorded in Ext.P6 order that is impugned in the writ petition. It is, in particular, pointed out that the Office Manager of the petitioner had attended the hearing before the 2nd respondent and stated that they were willing to enroll the 4th respondent from 21.02.2009 onwards and remit the dues. He had further admitted that the 4th respondent had not been enrolled pursuant to her joining the petitioner academy as an employee. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, the stand taken is that the 4th respondent was earlier an employee with Malabar Pleasures (India) Pvt.Ltd., Parassinikkadavu and was enrolled as a member of the EPF Scheme with effect from 31.08.2008 onwards. It is stated that consequent to her joining the petitioner academy, even assuming that her monthly pay exceeded Rs. 6,500/- per month, which was the ceiling limit prescribed for coverage under the Scheme, the provision of paragraph 26A of the EPF Scheme would enure to her benefit so as to permit her to continue as a member of the Scheme subject to the limitation that the contribution payable for her benefit by the employer would be restricted to the necessary percentage of the ceiling amount of Rs. 6,500/- per month. The 4th respondent, therefore, supports Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.