IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.05.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.10859 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 M/s. New Star English School, Nagapattinam. Rep. by its Correspondent B.Venkatasubramanian, No.15, Sebastiar Koil Street, Kadambadi, Nagapattianam - 611 001. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sree Complex, D-Block, 18, Madurai Road, Trichy - 620 008. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent passed in ATA.No.125(13)2002 dated 31.03.2010 culminating in the proceeding of the 2nd respondent bearing No.D3/TN/SRO- TRY/32110/2001-2002 dated 15.01.2002 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Devi O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 15.01.2002 passed by the second respondent. 2.The petitioner runs an unaided school under the name and style of "New Star English School". The petitioner did not remit contribution for the staff towards provident fund under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act"). The authorities of the Provident Fund Department initiated the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings for recovery of contribution from July 1986. The authorities assessed the payment of Provident Fund at Rs.58,412/- for the period from July 1986 to February 1995 in the order dated 18.07.1995. 3.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11127 of 1995. While issuing notice of motion on 18.08.1995, this Court granted interim stay on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and the same was complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition was allowed on 21.08.2001 on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent to consider the same afresh on condition that the petitioner deposits a further sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The petitioner has also complied with the same. After hearing the petitioner, the second respondent passed an order dated 15.01.2002 determining the same amount of Rs.58,412/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Twelve only) as payable by the petitioner towards Provident Fund contribution. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order dated 31.03.2010 confirming the order dated 15.01.2002 of the second respondent. 4.Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 15.01.2002 of the second respondent and the order dated 31.03.2010 of the first respondent. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities are not correct in holding that the school employed more than 20 staff. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only on some occasions, there were more than 20 staff. In fact, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court Ground 'O' in the affidavit, wherein the petitioner admits that on certain occasions, they employed more than 20 staff. Further, the learned counsel submits that the teachers are employed mostly on temporary basis and that therefore, the Act could not be applied to them. 6.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am not in agreement with the same. Since, the petitioner-school admits that on some occasions they employed more than 20 staff, they could not escape from the liability. Further, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner - school employs more than 20 staff. The authorities found on facts after verification of records that more than 20 staff are employed and hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact. It is also categorically recorded that the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 covers temporary employees also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.As already stated, even the petitioner school admits that they employ on some occasions that there were more than 20 employees. They want to exclude the temporary employees from counting for applicability of the Act. This is not permissible. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first and second respondents. 8.Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar SMN/TK To 1.The Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sree Complex, D-Block, 18, Madurai Road, Trichy - 620 008. 1 cc To Mr.V.Ragavachari, Advocate, SR.30769. W.P.No.10859 of 2010 JP(CO) RVL 01.06.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/