Madhya Pradesh High Court
Christian H.S.S. Methodist Centre vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner on 30 July, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-3097-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 30 th OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3097 of 2008
CHRISTIAN H.S.S. METHODIST CENTRE
Versus
ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner even in the second round.
Shri J.K. Pillai - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Uttam Maheshwari - Advocate for respondents No.4, 5 and 6.
ORDER
None for the petitioner even in the second round. This petition is of the year 2008.
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur by which a recovery to the tune of Rs.6,82,233/- has been imposed against the petitioner and the amount was directed to be deposited in the accounts of respondents No.3 to 6 by virtue of the powers conferred under Sections 7A & 7Q under the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in W.P. No.686 of 2001 dated 17.09.2014 wherein similar issue was considered by the coordinate Bench and the petition was dismissed in the following terms:-
"In the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though an appeal ought to have been preferred under Section 7-I of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/1/2024 7:01:21 PM
2 WP-3097-2008 1952 Act; however, since 14 years have passed from passing of order- dated 13.3.2000, the petitioner may not be driven to avail the remedy and the matter may be examined on merits.
It, however, being not disputed that in the batch of petitions connected with the present writ petition similarly situated private aided educational institution have abide by the decision dated 13.3.2000; wherein, the Regional Labour Commissioner after affording opportunity to the representatives of schools and the contentions raised on behalf of School Education Department that -
(a) In accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3969-70 of 1994 passed on 1.12.1998 the State Government has decided to issue instruction to aided non-Govt. Schools to follow the provisions of the Act from 1.8.82 to 1.8.88.
(b) It was the duty of the employer that is the managing committees of the concerned institutions to contribute P.F. The liabilities of paying contribution of PF does not lie on the State Govt.
(c) The Government has decided to withdraw the grant of the aided institutions at the rate of 20% every year w.e.f. 1.4.2000.
(d) The State Govt. of M.P. School Education Department have not formulated any scheme and plan for the employees of the aided, nongovernment institutions either contributory provident fund or for old age pension.
Taking into consideration these facts, the Commissioner recorded following findings -
"I have perused the representations filed by the establishments, Education Department, office records and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High court. I have heard all the parties. The only point in the present proceeding to be decided is as to whether in view of the amended provisions of section 16 of the Act w.e.f. 1.8.88 the Act continuous to apply to the establishments or not. The contention of the representative of the establishments are that they are under the control of the State Govt. and the employees are already in enjoyment of the P.F. and other benefits. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur has already examined the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/1/2024 7:01:21 PM
3 WP-3097-2008 issue of benefits and has concluded that the Schemes framed under the Act are much more beneficial to the employees of the establishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 1.12.98 has quoted the sub-rule (6) of the rule 10 of Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha Institutional Fund Rules, 1983. According to the provision of this rules itself, the provision of the Act are applicable to the establishments. It is also a fact that the aid to the non-Govt. Institutions are not provided for the 100% of the employees. In other words, there are non-aided employees also who are paid by the societies of the institutions itself and their P.F. contributions are not recovered/paid. Further the submission made by the Education Department of the State Government and order dated 10.3.2000 issued by the M.P. Govt. School Education Department falsifies the contention of the establishment that they are under the control of the State Govt. The said order clearly states that the aided non-government education institutes are neither in the control nor owned by the State Govt. of M.P. The order further goes on to speak that the employer of the establishment are their respective societies. The State Govt. of M.P. (School Education Department) in its representation dated 29.2.2000 has clearly stated that the MP School Education Department has not approved any other scheme or plan which entitles the employees of the aided nonGovt. Education Institution for the benefits of the contributory fund or old age pension. Thus, the establishments do not fall under the provisions of Sections 16(1)(b) of the Act as they are neither owned nor controlled by the State Government or Central Government."
Though it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has failed to take into consideration that the P.F. scheme and other benefits are available to the employees of private aided educational institutions; however, no such scheme is commended at which is more beneficial than the Scheme under 1952 Act, as would lead to holding of the impugned order dated 13.3.2000 suffering any illegality or that the scheme framed under the Act of 1952 are excluded vide Section 16(1)(b). In view whereof, no interference is caused.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/1/2024 7:01:21 PM4 WP-3097-2008 During course of hearing, reliance is placed on a decision by a Division Bench in VTP Higher Secondary School Shivpuri vs State of M.P. 2012(1) MPLJ 211. However, it appears from the decision that the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 13.3.2000 which was in pursuance to the direction by Supreme Court in M.P. Shikshak Congress (supra) was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Judges. Had the same be brought to the notice, there would not have been the occasion to remand said matter for reconsideration. Thus, the judgment in VTP Higher Secondary School Shivpuri (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs." Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed in the aforesaid case is applicable to the case of the petitioner mutatis mutandis , therefore, this petition may be dismissed on the same terms.
Considering the aforesaid, this petition is also dismissed in the light of order passed in W.P. No.686 of 2001 (M.P. Shikshak Congress and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others) dismissed on 17.09.2014.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/1/2024 7:01:21 PM