TIBETAN ADMINISTRATIONS WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner against Union of India, Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Siliguri (West Bengal) and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I), Regional Office, Shimla for an appropriate writ, direction or order in terms of Para 22 of the petition. The said Para reads as under: - "(a) Quash the impugned orders dated 24.09.1998 (P -6), 04.02.1999(P -12), 15.04.1999 (P -14) and dated 23.06.1999 (P -16) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Organisation, Siliguri are illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires; (b) Direct the respondent No. 1 to accord the exemption to the petitioner society as prayed for immediately; (c) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant records alongwith reply for perusal by this Honble Court; (d) Allow the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner, and; (e) Allow such other relief or pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and justice be done."

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society is aggrieved by the action of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Siliguri (West Bengal) whereby he had initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to respondent No. 2, Hotel Tibet of Gangtok was an establishment within the meaning of the Act and hence, the provisions of the Act were applicable to the said establishment. It is the say of petitioner, respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction in the matter. Petitioners head office is situate at Dharamsala in the State of Himachal Pradesh and Hotel Tibet at Gangtok is one of its corpus/units. The petitioner is a single establishment within the meaning of Section 2A of the Act. According to the petitioner, therefore, actions taken by respondent No. 2 are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and deserve to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Notices were issued, pursuant which the respondents appeared, respondent No. 1 Union of India has not filed an affidavit, respondent No. 2, however, filed a counter affidavit raising certain preliminary objections as well as objections on merits.