RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. CPF, COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi dated 27.1.1999 and the order of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner dated 3.5.1999. By the aforesaid two orders, the Provident Fund Commissioner has turned down the request for exemption from the purview of Section 16(1)(c) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of employees who are engaged through the contractors, are not covered by Rajasthan State Electricity Board Contributory Provident Fund Rules, Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 and Employees General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988.

(2.) Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioners are contributing provident fund even for employees working on daily wage basis. Petitioner-Electricity Board at the relevant time was constituted under State enactment and therefore was entitled for exemption under Section 16(1)(c) because it was granting benefit of contributory provident fund and old aged pension to its employees. In fact, the Board is giving pension to its employees and majority of the employees opted for pensionary benefits. The action of the respondents in not granting exemption to the petitioner is therefore bad in law and impugned orders are therefore liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Achintya Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that the Board has been granting exemption not only with reference to Section 16(1)(c) but also under Section 17 with effect from 1.11.1988 and such benefit was granted to it respectively by order dated 29.12.1964. However, the exemption was declined in respect of employees engaged by Board or through the contractor on daily wage basis. Such employees are neither entitled to benefit of contributory provident fund nor old age pension. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court mentioned in the impugned order dated 27.1.1999 whereby the same benefit was declined.