IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 19862 of 2002(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR T.C.PETER. BY ADV. MR.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF MR.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SC, MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, TRIVNADRUM. 2. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MAYOR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: E.SHAHABUDEEN, L.D. CLERK, KERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01/06/2009 IN C.M.P.NO.37524/2002. R1 & R2 BY MR.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SC, P.F. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 19862/2002-M ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.34062/2002 IN O.P. NO. 19862/2002 CLOSED 01/06/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/03/99. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION DATED 08/09/1989. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/05/99. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/06/99. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/07/99. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 21253/99 DATED 17/08/99. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/06/2002. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE EPF APPELLETE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.ATA7 (65)/99 DATED 07/04/2000. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF CREDIT FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF STATE BANK OF TRANVANCORE, TVM. DATED 25/06/2002. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF CREDINT FROM TREASURY ACCOUNT DATED 25/06/2002. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/07/2002. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 25/5/1983 TO 31/03/1985. EXT.P12(a): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1986. EXT.P12(b): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1987. EXT.P12(c): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1988. EXT.P12(d): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1989. EXT.P12(e): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1990. O.P. NO. 19862/2002-M EXT.P12(f): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1991. EXT.P12(g): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1992. EXT.P12(h): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1993. EXT.P12(i): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1994. EXT.P12(j): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1995. EXT.P12(k): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1996. EXT.P12(l): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1997. EXT.P12(m): COPY OF THE STTEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1998. EXT.P12(n): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/1999. EXT.P12(o): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/2000. EXT.P12(p): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ENDED ON 31/03/2001. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING REVENUE RECEIPT. GOVT. GRANT UTILISATION & PERCENTAGE REVENUE RECEIPT TO TOTAL EXPENDITURE DATED 08/07/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- O.P.No.19862 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore Kochi Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. In this original petition the dispute is regarding the liability for coverage, under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, in respect of the 34 daily waged employees of the petitioner society. 2. Facts of the case are that, without raising any dispute, the petitioner has been giving the benefit of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for its regular employees. While so, in 1998 respondents issued proceedings calling upon the petitioner to produce details of the wages and other particulars in so far as the 34 daily rated employees, who O.P.No.19862/02 2 were engaged by the petitioner are concerned. Though the petitioner furnished the particulars and produced the documents, they disputed their liability for covering the aforesaid daily rated employees mainly relying on Ext.P2 notification dated 8/9/1989 and subsequent notification extending the period thereof. 3. By Ext.P2, exercising the power conferred on the Central Government under Section 16(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the Central Government had exempted organizations registered under the Societies Registration Act and other similar enactments functioning mainly by grants in aid extended by the Central Government or the State Government for a period of 5 years stated in the notification. 4. Pursuant to the proceedings that were initiated, Section 7A enquiry was conducted and Ext.P5 order was issued by the first respondent rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged Ext.P5 before this court in O.P.No.21352/99. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment relegating the petitioner to O.P.No.19862/02 3 pursue the statutory appellate remedy and granting an order of conditional stay. Accordingly, appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by Ext.P8 order rejected the appeal. Thereupon proceedings for attachment as provided in Section 8F of the Act were initiated by Ext.P9 and it was at that stage this Original Petition was filed. 5. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. A reading of Exts.P5 and P8 show that, the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of exemption as provided under Ext.P2 notification, as extended thereafter was declined by the Commissioner as also the Tribunal for the reason that irrespective of the said notification, the petitioner has been extending the benefits of coverage in respect of their permanent employees. Yet another finding in Ext.P8 order is that the petitioner did not prove its entitlement by producing satisfactory document, to claim for the benefit of Ext.P2. O.P.No.19862/02 4 6. In so far as he finding that the petitioner is extending the benefit of coverage under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to its regular employees and therefore the petitioner cannot dispute its liability in so far as the daily rated employees are concerned I am not in a position to accept the finding in Exts.P5 and P8. Irrespective of the petitioner's voluntary coverage of its regular employees, under any notification or statutory provision, if the petitioner is entitled to exemption, the fact that they are giving coverage to a section of the employees by itself will not deprive the petitioner the benefit to which they are otherwise entitled. Therefore, the coverage of the regular employees cannot by itself be a ground to deny the benefit of exemption if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same. 7. The other finding in Ext.P8 which is against the petitioner is that the petitioner has not produced the satisfactory material to sustain its claim for the benefit of Ext.P2 exemption notification. True the finding regarding the absence of materials cannot be assailed for the reason O.P.No.19862/02 5 that, petitioner could not satisfy this court also about the availability of the satisfactory documents. However in this Original Petition, as Ext.P12 series, petitioner has produced statements, receipts and payment for the period from 25.5.1983 to 31.3.2001. This has been prepared by the Chartered Accountant and receipts towards ticket collection, bank interest, and grants in aid from Government of Kerala have been separately shown. It must also be conceded that, if these documents are found to be correct, substantial portion of the receipts of the petitioner is towards grants in aid. If so, petitioner may be eligible for the benefit of the notification as well. However, I do not wish to conclude on this issue. In my view, the first respondent should reconsider the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of exemption taking into account Ext.P12 series of document referred to above as well. Therefore I dispose of this original petition with the following directions. 8. On receipt of a copy of this judgment and within 8 weeks thereafter, the first respondent shall consider the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P2 O.P.No.19862/02 6 notification as extended thereafter, in the light of Ext.P12 series referred to above which shall be produced by the petitioner. It is directed that on such adjudication, if it is found that the case of the petitioner comes within the scope of Ext.P2, the benefit shall be extended to the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the coverage under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is being extended to its regular employees. 9. It is directed that, until the matter is reconsidered and fresh orders are passed, the interim order of stay granted by this court on 18.7.2002 will remain in force. It is clarified that in response to the notice to be issued by the first respondent, when the petitioner enters appearance, it will be open to the petitioner to produce any additional documents which they consider necessary for adjudication. Original Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ O.P.No.19862/02 7 ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- O.P.No.19862 OF 2002 ---------------------- Dated this the Ist day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT