LexM/S MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS versus THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 538 : 2023 INSC 909 538 CASE DETAILS M/S MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (Civil Appeal No. 4188 of 2013) OCTOBER 12, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Clubbing of two Institutions run by the same Society for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act. The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Coverage under the EPF Act by clubbing of two Institutes run by the same Society – Society ran two institutions including the appellant, in the same campus – One had 8 employees and the other had 18 – Report of the Enforcement Offi cer that there being total 26 employees working in both the Institutes, managed by the same Society and within the same premises, the establishment would be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act – Order passed by the Commissioner u/s.7-A of the EPF Act – Challenged by the appellant – Appeal dismissed by the Tribunal – Writ Petition fi led by the appellant also dismissed – Order upheld in writ appeal: Held: Appellant had taken the case very casually – Material on record suffi cient to non-suit the appellant – Even the documents produced by the appellant themselves show that it is not an independent establishment but an arm of the Society – Under the provisions of the EPF Act, if any establishment employs 20 or more persons, the same shall be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act for grant of various benefi ts thereunder to the employees working there, the EPF Act being a welfare legislation – The mere fact that two Institutes, managed and controlled by the same management, off er diff erent courses or were established at diff erent times is not relevant for their clubbing under the 539 EPF Act – The fact that one of the institutes receives 100% grant-in-aid from the government while the other is receiving to the extent of 70%, is also not relevant – After coverage of the establishments, the benefi ts, as determined for the purpose of assessing dues under the EPF Act, was already assessed by the Commissioner – Both the Institutes are being run by the same Society – The Ideal Institute was set up in the year 1965, whereas the appellant was set up in the year 1985-86 – If the employees employed in both the institutes are added, the total number of employees would be 26, which will be suffi cient for coverage in terms of s.1(3) (b) of the EPF Act, stipulating that an institute employing 20 or more persons is liable to be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act – It is also not in dispute that both the institutes are being run in the same campus – There is fi nancial integrity between the Society of the appellant as well as the other Institute as substantial funds were advanced to the Institutes by the Society – Further, both the Institutes are functioning from the same premises. [Paras 15, 16, 19, 21-23] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Management of Pratap Press, New Delhi v. Secretary, Delhi Press Workers’ Union Delhi etc., AIR 1960 SC 1213; L.N. Gadodia & Sons v. Provident Fund Commissioner, [2011] 11 SCR 508 : (2011) 13 SCC 517; Noor Niwas Nursery Public School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others, [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 478: (2001) 1 SCC 1; Shree Vishal Printers Limited, Jaipur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur and another, [2019] 12 SCR 146 : (2019) 9 SCC 508; Associated Cement Co. v. Workmen, [1960] SCR 703 : AIR 1960 SC 56; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Naraini Udyog, [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 202 : (1996) 5 SCC 522 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4188 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga in WA No.10133 of 2011. M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. Appearances: Basava Prabhu S Patil, Shailesh Madiyal, Mr./Ms. Geet Ratan Ahuja, Vinayaka S. Pandit, Samarth Kashyap, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Appellant. Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Himadri Haksar, Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Yash Singh, Narayan Dev Parashar, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The order dated 30.09.2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Gulbarga Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a Writ Appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.