Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on April 21, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 2354/2014
GOODS SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Pratap Sahani, Advocate
versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.R.C.Chawla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated October 31,
2013 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
(Tribunal, in short) in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order
dated March 10, 2011 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Orissa (Commissioner, in short), whereby the
Commissioner has decided the applicability of the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, in short) to the
appellant-Establishment for the period 06/2004 to 03/2009 and rejected
the appeal, holding that the employees’ strength of the Establishment
reached the figure of 20 in the month of June, 2004.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Act has
been made applicable to the petitioner-Organisation w.e.f. April 2009.
According to him, the reason for the applicability of the Act with effect
from that date was because that the strength of the employees exceeded
20. On a pointed query, as to whether, their appointment letters have
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 1 of 3
been annexed in the writ petition, the answer was in the negative. In
other words, no evidence has been placed on record to show that in fact,
because of the appointment of new employees, that the figure exceeded
beyond 20.
3. In any case, the Tribunal rejected the appeal on the basis of the
following conclusion:
“3. To conclude, it is pertinent to note that the defense
of the appellant is overwhelmed by one document
itself; namely the report of the Enforcement Officer
dated 28.01.2005 which has been affirmed by the
Principal of the appellant establishment by putting his
seal and signature. The said report dated 28.01.2005
mentions the employee strength for the month of June,
2004 (including the Principal) as 20. Since, the said
report has been affirmed by the Principal of the
appellant establishment, the report is to be held as
accepted by the appellant establishment. Hence, it can
be said that the employee strength of the appellant
establishment reached the figure of 20 in the month of
June, 2004 for the Act to be applicable to it.
Accordingly, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the
respondent authority is hereby upheld. Copy of the
order be sent to the parties and the file be consigned to
record room”.
4. From the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal, it is clear that the
working of 20 persons in terms of the report of the Enforcement Officer
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 2 of 3
has been accepted by the Principal by putting his signatures on the
report. If he had any objection, surely, the Principal was required to file
objections on the copy of the report on which, he has put his signatures
or by way of a separate communication. The Tribunal having concluded
that the Principal has accepted the report by putting his signatures, this
Court surely not take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal.
Further, I find as per its own stand of the petitioner-organisation in its
letter dated February 16, 2006, the regular staff, at that point of time,
consisted of 12 regular Teachers and 3 Attendants, which would add on
to 15. It is also stated that the school was assisted by 5-6 Trainee
Teachers for gaining some experience who were paid small honorarium.
If the figure is added, the same could come to 20. It would be a different
issue, if such Trainee Teachers had left subsequently as the same would
not have any effect on the applicability of the Act inasmuch as once the
number of 20 is attained, even if the number gets reduced below 20, that
would not make the Act inapplicable. I do not find any merit in the writ
petition. The same is dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
APRIL 21, 2014
akb
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 3 of 3
Decided on April 21, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 2354/2014
GOODS SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Pratap Sahani, Advocate
versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.R.C.Chawla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated October 31,
2013 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
(Tribunal, in short) in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order
dated March 10, 2011 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Orissa (Commissioner, in short), whereby the
Commissioner has decided the applicability of the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, in short) to the
appellant-Establishment for the period 06/2004 to 03/2009 and rejected
the appeal, holding that the employees’ strength of the Establishment
reached the figure of 20 in the month of June, 2004.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Act has
been made applicable to the petitioner-Organisation w.e.f. April 2009.
According to him, the reason for the applicability of the Act with effect
from that date was because that the strength of the employees exceeded
20. On a pointed query, as to whether, their appointment letters have
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 1 of 3
been annexed in the writ petition, the answer was in the negative. In
other words, no evidence has been placed on record to show that in fact,
because of the appointment of new employees, that the figure exceeded
beyond 20.
3. In any case, the Tribunal rejected the appeal on the basis of the
following conclusion:
“3. To conclude, it is pertinent to note that the defense
of the appellant is overwhelmed by one document
itself; namely the report of the Enforcement Officer
dated 28.01.2005 which has been affirmed by the
Principal of the appellant establishment by putting his
seal and signature. The said report dated 28.01.2005
mentions the employee strength for the month of June,
2004 (including the Principal) as 20. Since, the said
report has been affirmed by the Principal of the
appellant establishment, the report is to be held as
accepted by the appellant establishment. Hence, it can
be said that the employee strength of the appellant
establishment reached the figure of 20 in the month of
June, 2004 for the Act to be applicable to it.
Accordingly, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the
respondent authority is hereby upheld. Copy of the
order be sent to the parties and the file be consigned to
record room”.
4. From the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal, it is clear that the
working of 20 persons in terms of the report of the Enforcement Officer
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 2 of 3
has been accepted by the Principal by putting his signatures on the
report. If he had any objection, surely, the Principal was required to file
objections on the copy of the report on which, he has put his signatures
or by way of a separate communication. The Tribunal having concluded
that the Principal has accepted the report by putting his signatures, this
Court surely not take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal.
Further, I find as per its own stand of the petitioner-organisation in its
letter dated February 16, 2006, the regular staff, at that point of time,
consisted of 12 regular Teachers and 3 Attendants, which would add on
to 15. It is also stated that the school was assisted by 5-6 Trainee
Teachers for gaining some experience who were paid small honorarium.
If the figure is added, the same could come to 20. It would be a different
issue, if such Trainee Teachers had left subsequently as the same would
not have any effect on the applicability of the Act inasmuch as once the
number of 20 is attained, even if the number gets reduced below 20, that
would not make the Act inapplicable. I do not find any merit in the writ
petition. The same is dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
APRIL 21, 2014
akb
W.P.(C) 2354/2014 Page 3 of 3