CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in issuing notice as at Annexure -3 dated 3.9.1996 under Section 7 -A of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952) on the ground that the provisions of the said Act, 1952 do not apply to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the Cuttack Development Authority (in short 'C.D.A.'), which is a statutory body, constituted under the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.D.A. Act'. The Petitioner (C.D.A.) is the successor of Greater Cuttack Improvement Trust, which was constituted under the provisions of Orissa Town Planning Improvement Trust Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'O.T.P.I.T. Act'). It is the case of the Petitioner that in consonance with Section 83 of the C.D.A. Act, a resolution was passed by the C.D.A. resolving that the employees working under the C.D.A. are entitled to the benefit of pension & G.P.F. with effect from 1.9.1983 i.e. the date on which the C.D.A. was constituted. Admissibility of pension & other retirement benefits to the employees of C.D.A. was before this Court in OJC No. 768 of 1990. This Court by Judgment dated 29.10.1990 interpreting Section 83 of the C.D.A. Act held that the employees are entitled to old age pension & other retirement benefits. It is averred by the Petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of Section 83 of the C.D.A. Act as well as the ratio of the decision referred to above, all the employees working in the establishment of C.D.A. are entitled to old age retirement benefits & the employees of C.D.A., who have retired in the meanwhile have been paid old age pension as payable to their counter parts working under other Government organizations pursuant to the resolution of the C.D.A. in their 34th meeting held on 7.3.1993.

(2.) ATTENTION of this Court is drawn to Section 83 of the C.D.A. Act relying upon which it is submitted that the C.D.A. comes under the said Section & as prescribed in Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act, 1952, it shall not apply to any other establishment set up under any Central Provincial or State Act & whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits.

(3.) THE Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating its stand in the writ application & stating that a provision has been made for payment of pension & other retirement benefits pursuant to the Judgment of this Court in OJC No. 768 of 1990. The Petitioner has further stated that it being not covered under the Act, 1952, any such activities undertaken through the can tractors on execution of independent contracts are also not covered under the said Act. The contracts thus entered are not labour contracts nor the contractors provide labour to the C.D.A. The man power engaged by the contractors is not controlled by the C.D.A. nor there is any relationship of employer & employee between the C.D.A. & the persons working under such contractors. The notice itself having been issued without jurisdiction the availability of alternative remedy or the contention that proceeding is pending before the competent authority under the Act, 1952, can be a ground to contend that the writ application is not maintainable.