(1.) Heard Mr. K.K.Ramakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K.Gunasekar, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, Mrs.V.J.Latha, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Second to Fourth Respondents and Mr. D.Sathyaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Fifth and Sixth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
(2.) The Central Government by Notification No. S.O 30(E) dated 08.01.2011 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section l(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'the EPF Act1 for short) specified the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations constituted under Article 243-Q(l)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India employing 20 or more persons as a class of establishments to which that Act shall apply with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. In furtherance thereto, the Third Respondent by notice in proceedings No.Enf.Cl/TN/81727/TR/SRO-TRY-2014 dated 07.01.2015 called upon the Petitioner, viz., Virudhachalam Municipality, which is a Municipal Council in terms of Article 243-Q(l)(b) of the Constitution of India to submit the relevant records for the purpose of assessment under the provisions of the EPF Act. At that stage, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid notification dated 08.01.2011 issued by the First Respondent and the consequential notice dated 07.01.2015 received from the Third Respondent contending that there are separate provisions for payment of provident fund to its employees under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, governing it, which are still in force.
(3.) In this context, reference must be made to Section 1(3) of the EPF Act which itself provides that it is subject to the provisions of Section 16 of the EPF Act. The relevant portions of Section 16(l)(b) and (c) of the EPF Act are extracted below:-