IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6861 of 1992. Date of Decision : April 19, 2010. C.A.V. High School, Hisar through its Secretary Shri Gian Dev Tayal, Hisar. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, for the State of Haryana, Kothi No. 635, Sector-16-A, Faridabad, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 filed in the Court, taken on record, copy given. With the consent of parties, the case is taken up for final disposal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 16 (2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which was initially issued on 01.09.1984 for three years, which had been further extended, vide notification dated 26.08.1987 till 01.10.1990. He contends that in view of these notifications, the petitioner was not required to contribute as the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, were not applicable to the petitioner/Institution. He on this basis contends that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner with regard to the said period, deserves to be quashed. C.W.P. No. 6861 of 1992. -2- On the other hand, counsel for respondents contends that the matter under dispute had gone to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court had held that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be applicable to the Institutions and, therefore, the petitioner cannot avail of the benefit of notifications issued by the Central Government, which are now being pressed into service by the petitioner. However, counsel for respondent No. 1 has very fairly conceded that these notifications were not brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Supreme Court nor was this an issue before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In the light of the contentions raised by counsel for the parties, the submission of the petitioner deserves to be accepted in the light of the notifications issued by the Central Government. According to the said notifications, the petitioner was not to be amenable to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, accordingly the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The proceedings, therefore, initiated against the petitioner with regard to non contribution from 01.09.1984 to 31.10.1990 cannot be proceeded with and are accordingly quashed. However, prior and beyond the said period, when the notifications ceased to exist, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further. It is further clarified that the petitioner shall have liberty to make all their submissions, which they intend to take as defence with respondent No. 1 and the said submissions be considered and taken note of, while proceedings are finalised in accordance with law. The present writ petition stands allowed in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 19, 2010. sjks.