JAN SHIKSHA PRASAR Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (for short, 7-A Authority) as also the orders dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure P/4) and 15.04.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), New Delhi in ATA No.491 (8) 2004 and in review petition respectively.

(2.) Briefly stated, on 21.09.1999, the Inspector of the Provident Fund Department visited the petitioner's establishment in order to examine the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act (for short, the Act) on it. After getting the necessary information, the report dated 24.09.1999 was submitted by him before the 7-A Authority, recommending for application of the Act on the petitioner's establishment.

(3.) The petitioner establishment disputed the applicability of the Act on it, by raising a plea that it never employed 20 or more persons. It was stated by the petitioner that though in the letter dated 22.09.1999, list of 20 persons were given but it was clearly mentioned in it, that the names appearing at Serial No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are not its employees, as they are not being paid any salary / emoluments by the petitioner. It was also stated that those persons are providing their services on their own will as per their convenience to the petitioner's establishment, without any fixed working hours or days.