IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 22497 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT. 2. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE EPF & MP ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SKYLARK BUILDING, 60 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.22497 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in this writ petition are University of Calicut and the Principal of the Institute of Engineering and Technology run by the University. They are aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent demanding contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in respect of the employees employed in the Institute of Engineering and Technology. The petitioners contend that the Institution is not liable to be covered under the Act in so far as the Institute is part and parcel of the University itself, which is not liable to be covered under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 in so far as it direct the University to remit an amount of Rs.5,84,250/- ii) to declare that the provisions of the E.P.F. Act is not applicable to the institutions maintained by the University since they are statutorily exempted from the purview of the E.P.F. Act and the entire assessment process is bad in law.” 2. The prayers of the petitioners are opposed by the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organization. According to him, the question as to whether a separate establishment owned by a University is liable to be covered under the Act has been decided by the Supreme Court in two decisions in favour of the Provident Fund 2 Organization and, therefore, that question is no more res integra. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly two appeals are pending in respect of the liability of the petitioners to pay contributions in respect of the Institute. In respect of one of them, in a writ petition challenging recvoery proceedings, a judgment has also been passed by this Court staying coercive proceedings pending disposal of the appeal, on condition that the petitioners pay 50 per cent of the amounts demanded. The petitioners being a University and an educational institution, I think that further coercive proceedings should wait till the Tribunal takes a decision in the appeals. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent not to take any coercive proceedings in respect of the impugned orders until the Tribunal finally decides the matter either way. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge