IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10154 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CRESCENT PUBLIC SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.KUNHI MOOSA, KUNIYAN HOUSE, PANAMARAM P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT, KERALA-673006. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10154 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running a Nursery School, a Lower Primary School (Government aided), an Upper Primary School and a High School in Wayanad District. Based on an inspection conducted by the Inspector appointed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 the respondent herein conducted an enquiry under section 7A of the said Act. Ext.P3 order was thereafter issued after notice to and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. By that order the respondent held that besides six non-teaching staff, 18 teachers were employed in the petitioner's school, that many of the teachers were appointed prior to 15.7.2002 and are working regularly for months and years together. The respondent held that in such circumstances the contention of the management that 9 teachers are trainees cannot be believed. W.P(C) NO.10154/2011 -:2:- The respondent accordingly held that the petitioner's establishment is a covered establishment with effect from 1.8.2002 and directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.1,77,724/- as contribution to the employees provident fund for the period from August 2002 to December 2005. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P8 order passed on 20.1.2011 the said appeal was rejected. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P8 orders. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the 9 out of 18 teachers referred to in Ext.P3 order are trainees and therefore the respondent erred in including them in the list of teachers employed in the school. 2. The petitioner is admittedly running a Lower Primary School with the aid of the Government. The petitioner's Lower Primary School is a recognised school. Besides the recognised Lower Primary School, the petitioner is also running an unaided Upper Primary School and a High School. The provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the rules framed thereunder do not contemplate appointment of trainee teachers. The petitioner's institutions have no authority to train teachers. Therefore, the case put forward by the petitioner that 9 out of the 18 teachers W.P(C) NO.10154/2011 -:3:- referred to in Ext.P3 order are trainees cannot be believed. The first respondent was therefore right in proceeding on the basis that the establishment of the petitioner employs 18 teachers besides 6 non-teaching staff. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.10154 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 30th March, 2011