-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 281 OF 1998 1. Bombay General Employees’ Association¦ .. Petitioners it address at C/o. Bajaj Electricals ¦ Ltd.,15/17 Sant Savta Marg, Reay Rd. ¦ Mumbai 400 010 ¦ ¦ And 2. Mr. Mittal Harsh ¦ ¦ 3. Mr.Patwardhan Kedar Suresh ¦ ¦ 4. Mr.Choudhury Purnendu ¦ ¦ 5. Mr.Kale Balkrishna Damodar ¦ ¦ 6. Mr.Puranik Jayant Dattatraya ¦ ¦ 7. Mr. Fadnis Preshit P. ¦ ¦ 8. Mr. Dipak M. Karnik ¦ ¦ 9. Ms. Gayatri Aditya Rathi ¦ ¦ 10. Mr.Kharkar Ashish R. ¦ ¦ 11. Mr.Sawant A. Shreeniwas ¦ ¦ 12. Ms. Shah K. Varsha ¦ ¦ Employees of Bajaj Electricals Ltd., ¦ .. Petitioners Offices at 45-47,Veer Nariman Road, ¦ Mumbai 400 023; 51, M.G.Rd.,Mumbai- ¦ 23: And 15/17 Sant Savta Marg,Reay ¦ Road, Mumbai 400 010 ¦ V/s. 1. The Regional Provident Fund ¦ .. Respondents Commissioner, office at - ¦ Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, ¦ Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. ¦ -: 2 :- ¦ 2. Union of India. ¦ ¦ 3. Bajaj Electricals Limited ¦ its registered office at 45-47 ¦ Veer Nariman Rd., Mumbai -23 ¦ ¦ 4. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Employees’ ¦ Provident Fund Trust, its office ¦ at 15/17, Sant Savta Marg, Reay ¦ Road, Mumbai 400 010. ¦ --- Mr. Suneel D. Mogre for the Petitioners. Mr. M.U. Pandey for the Respondents 3 and 4. --- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A. A. SAYED, JJ. SRI A. A. SAYED, JJ. SRI A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent nos.3 and 4. None present for the respondent nos.1 and 2 though served. 2. Perused the petition and annexures thereof as well as affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 at the time of admission of the petition as also the affidavit filed by the management. -: 3 :- 3. By the present petition, the petitioners are essentially seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the applications filed by the employees of the respondent no.3 in accordance with the provisions of law as expeditiously as possible and bearing in mind the practice which was followed by the respondent no.3 and its employees all throughout in relation to the provident fund contribution. 4. Though in the petition various reliefs are prayed for, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has fairly conceded that at this stage, only the above stated relief can be granted in the matter and therefore, though the right to canvass other reliefs is not given up at the moment, the petitioners would restrict the petition for the above stated relief only, while reserving their right to agitate all other issues at the appropriate time and in appropriate proceedings. 5. The facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that the respondent no.3 company was incorporated in the year 1938. The respondent no.4 was formed in the year 1945 and had recognition of the statutory authorities including income tax authorities. The employees of the respondent no.3 have adequate -: 4 :- representation on the board of the trustees of the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 has been duly authorised under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to have and operate provident fund account of the employees of the respondent no.3. It has also an approval of the income tax department. 6. In terms of section 15 of the said Act, the appropriate government has powers to exempt any establishment or a person or a class of persons from applicability of any of the provisions of the statutory scheme framed under the said Act. Exemption is granted pursuant to the individual application by the employee in that regard, in terms of para 27 of the statutory scheme. Accordingly, some of the employees of the respondent no.3 had applied for exemption and the same was granted to them over a passage of time. However, under letter dated 15th of October, 1997, the respondent no.2 informed the respondent no.3 that contribution in respect of the employees is required to be remitted to the statutory fund unless specifically exempted and merely because in terms of the practice which was followed by the petitioners and its employees all throughout such contribution was made to the fund maintained by the respondent no.4, that would not exempt the respondent -: 5 :- no.3 nor would entail the members of the petitioners to agree without the sanction of the authority for continuation of such practice. Non-compliance of the statutory obligation would attract punishment and therefore, respondent no.3 should discontinue the said practice forthwith. The said letter was obviously forwarded to the petitioners namely, its members being employees of the respondent no.3 and consequently, the same is sought to be challenged by the present petition. 7. It is not necessary to deal with the various contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners in this matter at this stage. Suffice to observe that it is not in dispute that the establishment of the respondent no.3 was established in the year 1938 and further the respondent no.4 was established in the year 1945 and since then the employees of the respondent no.3 have their provident fund contribution invested in the fund maintained by the respondent no.4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had recognised this practice while granting sanction to some of the employees, it being in tune with the said practice and therefore, granted exemption under para 27 of the statutory scheme. The records also disclose that as many as 572 employees of the respondent no.3 filed similar application for exemption under para 27 of the EPF Scheme since July, 1992 onwards with the -: 6 :- respondent no.2. However, these applications have not been disposed of till this date. Neither the record discloses disposal of those applications nor the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have placed any material on record which could reveal disposal of the said applications either by way of granting exemption or refusal thereof. Once the respondents have undisputedly granted such exemption to number of employees of the respondent no.3 as the members of the petitioners have no grievance whatsoever in investing their provident fund contribution with the fund maintained by the respondent no.4 and since there was no statutory bar for such investment, one fails to understand hesitation on the part of the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to dispose of the applications filed by the employees of the respondent no.3 for such a long period. Exh.‘C’ to the petition is the list of such employees who have filed applications and they are still pending for disposal with the respondent no.2. 8. In the circumstances, without expressing any view on the point sought to be raised and leaving all issues open, it will be appropriate to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide such applications as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the receipt of the writ of this court -: 7 :- in accordance with the provisions of law and bearing in mind what is recorded herein above. Till the communication of the order of disposal of the applications to the petitioners and the respondent no.3, the interim relief granted on 10th of June, 1998 shall continue to be in force and for a further period of six weeks in case the order happens to be adverse to the applicant. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.) .....