Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Thiruvananthapu ram).

The Division Bench held that the said order, i.e., Exhibit P.7, be to be a decision as per para 26B of the Emp loyees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme") and remitted the matter to the Competent Authority to proceed with the enquiry contemplated under Sub-section (3) of section 7A of the Employees" Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to "the Provid ent Funds Act").

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appell ant submitted that the non-members, working journalists, journalists and non-journalists, who wanted to be the Member of the Scheme, made an application and a determination was made in their favour under para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, though they were not employees of the appellant-newspaper. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 cannot be invoked by 1st respondent, the status of 47 persons cannot b e adjudicated under the Provident Fund Act, 1952, which can be adjudicated at best by a Civil Court.

In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that while remitting the matter to the Competent Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 7A of the Provident Funds Act, 1952 it was incumbent on the part of the High Court to ask the Competent Authority to determine the preliminary issue whether 47 journalists, working journalists, non-journalists, etc. are covered under the Provident Fund Act and Scheme. If the issue is answered in affirmative, in that case, the Competent Authority will decide whether such employees are entitled to become members of the Scheme as per para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.