BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the pre-induction training period undergone by the Petitioners in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short BSNL) is covered for the purpose of deducting subscription towards Employees Provident Fund in terms of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act)?

(2.) When the third Respondent had conducted an Adalat in respect of provident fund matters during January, 2010, some of the contesting Respondents who are working either as Junior Telecom Officers or Junior Accounts Officers, made a grievance that their training period was not counted for the purpose of coverage under the Act and therefore, they were aggrieved by the non coverage. The said matter was taken for giving ruling by the third Respondent in terms of Paragraph 26B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Under the said paragraph, if any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, a decision of the Regional Commissioner was made final. But proviso to the said paragraph made that no such decision can be rendered unless both the employer and employee were heard on the said issue.

(3.) After taking notice on the complaint projected by the contesting Respondents, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner gave notice to the parties. After hearing both sides, he has passed an order, dated 1.9.2010 and directed the contesting Respondents and other similarly placed employees working in M/s. Chennai Telephones (BSNL) to be made as members of EPF Scheme and other schemes from the date on which the individuals joined or reported for their pre-induction training and that their contribution should be regulated accordingly. The contribution in respect of both employees and employer doe for that period was to be worked out and remitted immediately. In case, no remittance was done, the Petitioner BSNL was informed that it will attract damages and consequential interest on delayed payment.