JOYCE MAMMEN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court praying for quashing Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to pay provident fund contribution in respect of the employees in the hospital run by the petitioner under the name and style, M/s. St. Andrews Hospital, Puthencavu, Chengannur, for the period from Oct., 1978. The petitioner's contention is that the hospital was started by her only on 30-9-1978, that she is entitled to exemption from payment of contribution for a period of 5 years from 30-9-1978 and that she can be made liable only from Oct., 1983.

(2.) Sec. 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows:

(3.) The petitioner took on lease the building from St. Marys Orthodox Syrian Church at Chengannur on 9-6-1978 for running a hospital. At the time of the lease, the building was used for running a hospital in the name and style, M/s. St. Andrews Hospital. If Ws. St. Andrews Hospital which was run in the building had 20 or more employees on its rolls prior to the lease and that the hospital was leased out to the petitioner for running the same, then the question will arise as to. whether the petitioner can claim the infancy period as prescribed by section 16(1)(b) of the Act from 30-9-1978. If the earlier hospital was one covered by the provisions of the Act and there was only a change in the Management, then the petitioner cannot claim infancy period of 5 years prescribed by section 16(l)(b). But, for making the petitioner liable for contribution from Oct. 1978 as has been done in Ext.P7 there should have been a finding entered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the hospital which was rented out to the petitioner as one covered by the Act prior to the lease deed and the petitioner continued to run the same in pursuance to the lease. In other words there should have been a finding that the hospital covered by the Act continued with the change in Management.