IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2562 of 1994. Date of Decision : May 21, 2010. Dev Smaj College for Girls, Ambala City, through its Incharge Shriman Sudershan Kumar Ji ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Board of Trustees, Sub Regional Office, Kothi No. 7-8, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Provident Fund Commissioner, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). 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. 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 C.W.P. No. 2562 of 1994. -2- 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 respondents No. 1 and 2 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 May 21, 2010. sjks.