COMMISSIONER, GOPICHETTIPALAYAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mahesh Nath, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. R.Meenakchi, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent, Mr. R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Second Respondent and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Learned Government Counsel appearing for the Third and Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner is a Municipal Council in terms of Article 243-Q(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The Central Government by Notification No. S.O. 30(E) dtd. 8/1/2011 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act' for short) specified the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations constituted under Article 243-Q(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India employing 20 or more persons as a class of establishments to which the EPF Act shall apply with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. The First Respondent by Order No. TN/ SRO/SLM/COMP-II/90013/E2/2012 dtd. 31/1/2012 had determined the liability of the Petitioner towards provident fund contribution as Rs.2,31,922.00in respect of its establishment for the period from March 2011 to December 2011 under Sec. 7-A of the EPF Act. The Petitioner thereafter made an application for review dtd. 21/3/2012 invoking Sec. 7-B of EPF Act, but the First Respondent by an order No. TN/SRO/SLM/COMP-II/90013/E2/2012 dtd. 20/6/2012 rejected the same. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dtd. 31/1/2012 and 20/6/2012 in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it requires to be noticed that Sec. 7-B(5) of the EPF Act reads as follows:-