Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is the Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Thirukkoil at Palani. They have come forward to challenge the notice issued by the first respondent dated 23.07.2010 in ATA.No.906(13)2008 as well as the order of the second respondent dated 23.10.2007 and seeks for quashing the same.

2.When the matter came up for admission on 23.09.2010, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, took notice for the second respondent Provident Fund Department.

3. The petitioner Devasthanam was issued with a notice under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of the hospital run by the Devasthanam as well as Arulmigu Palaniandavar Matriculation School at Palani. The petitioner Establishment was informed that their hospital and the educational institution were covered by the provisions of the Act with effect from 01.12.1977 and 01.08.1992 respectively under Section 1(3)(b) of the EPF Act. A memo dated 08.10.1994 was given to them and they were also allotted a code number. The coverage memos were issued to them on the basis of the enquiry report issued by the Enforcement Officer. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to cover the employees right from the date of the coverage. Though an enquiry was fixed on 08.11.994, none appeared.

5. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the employees working in the Devasthanam Hospital as well as in the Matriculation School were servants of the Devasthanam and they will not be covered by the provisions of the Act. The employees of the Thirukkoil are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Ednowment Act, which provides for payment of contributions to provident fund and gratuity. They are covered by the Devasthanam Contributory Provident Fund Rules. In view of the same, the Act is not applicable to them under Section 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

iii)any School whether recognized or not or aided by the Central or State government

iv)any Scientific institution

v)any institution in which research in respect of any matter is carried on

vi)any other institution in which the activity of imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on.

7. The argument that the employees working in the Matriculation School and Hospital are Thirukkoil employees cannot be accepted. There is difference between religious/spiritual matters relating to the temple and Welfare activities like running schools, hospitals, etc. The further argument that the Devasthanam is having Contributory Provident Fund Rules with effect from 01.07.1965 and giving benefits of provident fund to its employees are not made applicable to Matriculation Schools and Hospitals in terms of Section 16(b) and 16(c) of the EPF Act.

11. Challenging these two orders, the writ petition came to be filed.

12. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.D.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan learned counsel taking notice for the second respondent Provident Fund Department.

13. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel contended that by an order dated 01.02.1969, the Provident Fund in respect of the Devasthanam was approved by the Commissioner for HR & CE and Devasthanam has framed its own Contributory Provident Fund Rules. Efforts are made to justify that the rules are more favorable to the employees. It is also stated that in the Matriculation School, there are about 27 persons working and in the Hospital, there are about 8 persons working. However it is seen from the records that the Special Commissioner, HR & CE by a letter dated 19.09.2007 directed all the Officers stating that employees working in Devasthanam can be granted pensionary and terminal benefits under the purview of the EPF Act and the practice of maintaining CPF in the temple should be brought an end and the accrued amounts to the credit of employees can be given to them at the end of their tenure.