IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 15481 of 2005(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.MICRO OBJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 1566/XLI, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KOCHI 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR JERRY GEORGE.K. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BAHVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI 18, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE, TRIBUNAL 70, SKYLARK BUILDINGS, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 019. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 15481/2005. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF LETTER DT. 2-1-2003. EXT.P2 REPLY DT. 6-1-2003. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 21-3-2003. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 9-4-2003. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 29-4-2003. EXT.P6 REPLY DT. 8-5-2003. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 30-5-2003. EXT.P8 CLARIFICATION DT. 10-12-2002. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 18-12-2003. EXT.P10 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 570/2004 DT. 23-2-2004. EXT.P11 STATEMENT FILED BEFORE R1. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 1-12-2004. EXT.P13 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 11-3-2005. EXT.P15 GAZETTE DATED 29-5-1971. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 15481 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment engaged in the business of developing softwares for computer systems. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation sought to cover this establishment under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act by virtue of notification GSR No. 805 dated 17-5-1971 issued by the Government of India. Originally, demand was made without deciding the question of coverage. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 570/2004 in which this Court, by judgment dated 23-3-2004, directed the 1st respondent to decide the issue of coverage in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed Ext. P12 order holding that the petitioner's establishment is liable to be covered under the Act in view of the said notification, which is produced as Ext. P15 in this writ petition. Petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal having been dismissed by Ext. P14, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P12 and P14 orders. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a statement supporting Exts.P 12 and P14. I have heard arguments of both sides. 3. The question to be considered now is whether the petitioner's establishment is liable to be covered under the Act by virtue of Ext. P15 notification. Ext. P15 reads thus: “G.S.R.805:- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby specifies that with effect from the 31st May, 1971, the said Act shall apply to every establishment rendering expert services such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts and payroll, irregularities to factories and establishments on certain terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the establishment and the establishment rendering expert services and employing twenty or more persons.” The question, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner's W.P.C. No. 15481/2005 -: 2 :- establishment renders expert services such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts and payroll irregularities to factories and establishments on certain terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the parties. The words 'such as' would indicate that for bringing in other services not detailed in the notification within its purview, such other services should be esjudem generis with those enumerated in the notification. Therefore, only expert services similar to those mentioned in the notification would come under the purview of the notification. The petitioner is engaged in developing computer softwares, which cannot be termed as an expert service like those mentioned in Ext. P15 notification. Further, the Government of India itself, by S.O. 1190 (E) dated 27-7-2006 brought establishments like the petitioner also within the purview of the Act. That itself would show that the petitioner's establishment is not covered under Ext. P15 notification, which necessitated issue of the said notification bringing establishments like the petitioner's within the purview of the Act. Therefore, clearly, the petitioner's establishment is not one coming within the purview of Ext. P15 notification and therefore they are not liable to be covered under the Act till 26-7-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to that notification, the petitioner's establishment has been covered with effect from 27-7-2006. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Exts.P 12 and P14 orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, the same are quashed. However, this will not preclude the 1st respondent from W.P.C. No. 15481/2005 -: 3 :- recovering amounts due under the Act from the petitioner subsequent to 27-7-2006, by virtue of the Notification dated 27-7-2006 mentioned above. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/