C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 Date of decision:2.11.2011 S.D.M.R.S.D. College Society .. Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal,Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for respondent No.3 to 16. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. The petitioner is an educational institution affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. It is registered as a society and one of its colleges is at Pathankot. The college has on its rolls both teaching and non-teaching staff. The college stands allotted Employees Provident Fund Code No. PN/7962 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar. 2. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 2 the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing notice dated 28.7.2010 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar under Section 15(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “1952 Act”) calling upon the petitioner to furnish details of all employees of the college, their Saving Bank Account Numbers, the address of the bank, the amount of money lying in the account of each employee and the rate of interest so that this information reaches the office of the Commissioner by 2.8.2010. The petitioner responded to that notice and stated that 22 of its employees were members of the Contributory Provident Fund (for short, ”CPF”) for the past 16 years and that the CPF account had been initiated and was being maintained in accordance with the University Rules and especially Rule 17 of the University Calendar which provides that Colleges have to follow the general pattern of the as per the CPF Rules adopted by the Punjab Education Department. In short the petitioner gave out that it was running its own scheme of CPF in a bank of its choice and not as envisioned under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Provisions of the 1952 Act. 3. The provisions of the 1952 Act were made applicable to educational institutions with effect from 6.3.1982 according to notification No. S.O.986 dated 19.2.1981, Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 6.3.1982. In the petition, it has not been disclosed that the petitioner had faced assessment proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act for the period March 1998 to March 1999. The proceedings were initiated qua both the teaching and non-teaching employees and culminated in passing of the assessment order dated 24.11.2000. The order dated 24.11.2000 was carried to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act which upheld the assessment order with a C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 3 direction to the petitioner to transfer the amount lying in the State Bank of Patiala to the Provident Fund Authority, Amritsar and that the amount lying in Provident Fund Account in the bank should be adjusted while complying with appropriate deposit of dues under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The order of Appellate Authority has attained finality. The above sequence of events has been narrated in the written statement filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is said that the impugned notice dated 28.7.2010 (P4) was issued to implement the final order of the Appellate Authority. 4. The petitioner has been trying to take shelter of un-amended Ordinance 5(i) of Appendix II of the Provident Fund for College Employees which permitted that Provident Fund credits of employees could be paid into Post Office Savings Bank or into a Cooperative Bank approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or into a class “A” Scheduled Bank. Guru Nanak Dev University-respondent No.2 amended Ordinance 5(i) and substituted the same in such manner as would bring it in sync with the 1952 Act and the EPF Scheme framed there under and the amended law mandated that the Provident Fund Ledger maintained by the College Governing Bodies affiliated to it would henceforth be paid into the Provident Fund Commissioner’s office. This amendment was carried out in the University Ordinance/Calendar 2007 on 10.6.2010. The petitioner’s principal challenge is as to the vires of the amendment and that it is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The other prayer is for a direction to the first respondent not to initiate proceedings under Section 15(2) of the 1952 Act till the proceedings under Section 7-A are not finalized. The principal resistance to the applicability of the Act is that the 22 employees mentioned in (P2) should be excluded and therefore, the challenge to the notice under Section 15(2) has been laid. C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 4 Before we proceed further, it would be apt to quote the un-amended and amended Rule 5(i). Un-amended“5(i)- The sum credited to the depositors monthly under ordinances 4 and 5 in the Provident Fund Ledger maintained by the College governing Body, shall be paid duly into the Post Office Savings Bank or into a co-operative Bank approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or into a class 'A' Scheduled Bank. Such payment should, whenever possible, be made into the bank between the Ist and 4th of each month in order that interest may accrue. The bank account for each individual contributors shall be kept separately in the name of the President/Secretary of the college on behalf of the contributor and separate pass book should be issued in each case.' Amended “5(i)- The sum credited to the depositors monthly under ordinances 4 and 5 in the Provident Fund Ledger maintained by the college Governing Body, shall be paid duly to the Provident Fund Commissioner's office. Such payment should be made into the Provident Fund Commissioner's account between 1st and 4th of each month in order that interest may accrue.” 5. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Act lays down a maximum pay of ` 6500/- p.m. before the Act can be made applicable and since the 22 members of the CPF Scheme were drawing wages/pay/salary in excess of `6500/- p.m, therefore, the 1952 Act and Scheme would not apply and they would be free to carry on C.W.P. No. 16080 of 2010 5 with their own CPF scheme. The argument is misconceived. Once the Act applies on achieving the numerical strength of 20, it is of no consequence that members of the EPF Scheme under the Act are subsequently placed in higher scale of pay. The salary is to be seen only at entry point into the scheme and that it should be less than what is prescribed under the Act and Rules. So far as the challenge to the amended Ordinance 5(i) is concerned, we can only say that the GNDU woke rather late in the day to bring its ordinances and statutes in conformity with the Central Act, 1952. Therefore, the un-amended provision 5(i) was clearly contrary to law. We therefore, have no hesitation to repel the argument based on challenge to amended Ordinance 5(i) of the University Calendar. It is perfectly good. 6. Faced with this situation, Mr. Vivek Salathia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the proceedings under Section 15 have not culminated in a final order as yet for the years 1999-2000 onwards it should be left free to defend itself before the competent authority with all legally permissible pleas before any final order is passed in those proceedings. It is not for us to abort those proceedings which may be taken to their logical conclusion. This order, however, would remain final with regard to the vires of amended Ordinance 5(i) since the petitioner has pointedly raised and pressed the issue of vires of the amended Ordinance and called upon us to opine of its constitutionality. 7. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition having heard learned counsel for the parties at length. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) Acting Chief Justice JUDGE November 2,2011 nk