MIS. YESHWANT GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA versus THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 09-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
I• 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 939 
MIS. YESHWANT GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA 
A 
v. 
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 721of2013) 
MARCH 09, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi~ions 
B 
Act, 1952 - s.16 -Applicabili(v of-Appellant is a registered sociezv 
C 
and runs schools and colleges - It appointed part-time employees 
with approval of State Government- Whether the provisions of 1952 
Act (Central Act) will apply to the part-time employees in the schools/ 
colleges of appellant whose service conditions are governed by the 
provisions of State Act and State Rules and whether appellant is 
D 
deemed to have defaulted in depositing Provident Fund contribution 
of 16 of its part time employees - Held: The appellant is 100% 
grant-in-aid school and is umler the control of State Government -
The employees working in school/college of appellant are covered 
by the contributory provident fund scheme framed by State 
Government subject to eligibility - Appellant-society, thus, ji1/fills 
E 
the twin conditions specified in s.16(1}(b) - It follows that the same 
is exempted from the application of provisions of Central Act - Once 
an establishment is covered under any one of the excepted category 
u/s.16 of the Central Act, the officials empowered by the Central 
Act will have no authority to proceed against such establishment; 
and more so on the ground that a miniscule number uf emplcyees 
F 
(16 part-time employees) working in the establishment were not 
eligible for the benefits under the State Contributory Provident Fund 
Scheme governing the rest of the regular employees of the 
establishment - Initiation of action of recovery against the 
establishment of the appellant, which was otherwise exempted from 
G 
application of the provisions of the Central Act is, therefore, whol~v 
without authority of law - Maharashtra Employees of Private 
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - r.20 - Maharashtra 
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)Regulation 
Act, 1977. 
H 
939 
940 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A plain reading of Section 1 of the Employees 
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central 
Act) shows that the Central Act applies to the establishments 
referred to therein. In the instant case, the appellant's 
B establishment may fall within the purview of "other 
establishment" referred to in sub-clause (b) of Section 1(3). It is 
indisputable that the Central Government in exercise of the 
powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of 
the Central Act has published a Notification being No.S.0.-986, 
c dated 19.02.1982 on 06.03.1982, so as to include all the 
educational institutions in the category of "any other 
establishment", namely;University; College (Whether or not 
affiliated to a University); School (Whether or not recognized or 
aided by the Central or a State Government); any scientific 
institution; any institution in which research in respect of any 
D matter is carried on; and any other institution in which the activity 
of imparting knowledge or training is systematically carrieu on. 
A conjoint reading of Section 1 of the Central Act with the said 
notification, makes it clear that the Central Act would apply to all 
the colleges and schools, subject to the provisions of Section 16 
E · of that Act. [Paras 16, 17)(952-D-G] 
2.1 The question then arose: whether the appellant school 
is an establishment covered by any one of the excepted category 
specified in Section 16 of the Central Act. The appellant has 
invoked clause (a) as well as clause (b) of Section 16 (1) of the 
Central Act. As regards the argument hinging on clause (a), it 
F 
proceeds on the premise that the appellant's school (in which 16 
part-time employees were working), had employed less than fifty 
persons and working without the aid of power. This ar6ument 
cannot come to the aid of the appellant. Inasmuch as, the appellant 
is running 29 schools/colleges and has employed around 1151 
G permanent employees. Section 2A of the Central Act predicates 
that where an establishment consists of different departments or 
has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different 
places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as part 
of the same establishment. In other words, the fact tltat the 
appe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.