LexM.P. SHIKSHAK CONGRESS AND ORS. versus R.P.F. COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.P. SHIKSHAK CONGRESS AND ORS. v. R.P.F. COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR AND ORS. DECEMBER I, 1998 B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 Central law-State /aw-Repugnancy-App/icabi/ity of Article C 254(2)-Conditionfor-There must be a repugnancy between any provision of a State law and any provision of an earlier existing law made by Parliament. M.P. Ashaskiya Sikshan Sansthan (Adhyapekon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978: Section 5(2). D Employees' Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Sections 1(3) (b) and 16(1) (b) (As amended with effect from 1.8.1988). State of Madhya Pradesh-Aided Schools-Teachers and Emp/oyees- Regiona/ Provident Fund Commissioner--Order directing the appellant to deposit contribution of employers as well as employees from 1.8.82 to E 1.12.88-Writ challenging order-Dismissal by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Plea of repugnancy between State and Central Act-Held · in the present case, when the Madhya Pradesh Act of 1978 was enacted, there was no repugnancy between that State Act and the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 already enacted by Parliament-The Parliamentary Act did not apply to educational F institutions-The State Act dealt with salaries and other ancillary matters governing certain educational institutions-Therefore, there was no repugnancy between the earlier Parliamentary legislation and the late State legislation-There was no question, therefore, of the State Act prevailing over the Parliamentary Act of 1952-Infact, quite clearly the Central Act did G not apply to educational institutions either in the State of Madhya Pradesh or anywhere else-The Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 became applicable to educational institutions in the State of Madhya pradesh for the first time on 6th of March, 1982-This was much later than the enactment of the State Act of 1978-The Parliamentary enactment, therefore, would prevail over the State Act of 1978-For the 198 H M.P. SHIKSHAK CONGRESS v. R.P.F. COMMR. JABALPUR 199 period 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1988 the Employees' Provident Fund A Act was applicable to such teachers and employees of the aided schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh who are covered by the provisions of the scheme framed thereunder-The order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, therefore; in so far as the orders cover the period 1st August, 1982 to isl August, 1988 are valid-For the limited purpose of examining B whether for the period 1st of August 1988 to isl of December, 1988 the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 are applicable to the concerned institutions-The matter referred to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Doctrine of pith and substance-Applicability of Pt. Rishikesh & Anr. v. Sa/ma Begum (Smt.), [1995] 4 SCC 718, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3969-70 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.93 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P.Nos. 1555 and 3040of1991. S.K. Mehta, C.L. Sahu and Ms. Shobha for the Appellants. c D Ms. Kamareshwari, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Anil Katiyar, (Mrs. Madhur E Dadlani and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by The present appeals arise from the judgments and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under which the High Court has upheld the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 24th of April, 1991 and 15th of F July, 1991 directing the employer concerned, being the schools mentioned in the said orders, to deposit, the contribution of the employees as well as the employers to the provident fund constituted under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for the period I st August, 1982 to I st December, 1988. The writ petitions filed by the appellants to G challenge these orders have been dismissed by the High Court. The appellants have filed the present appeals in a representative capacity on behalf of the teachers and other employees of various private but aided schools in the ' State of Madhya Pradesh. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, under the Central Provinces and Berar H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Education Manual, 1928, in Appendix XVIII there was a scheme constituting a provident fund for teache
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.