NOOR NIWAS NURSERY PUBLIC SCHOOL versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONNER AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 08-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NOOR NIWAS NURSERY PUBLIC SCHOOL 
v. 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONNER AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ .] 
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952-
Sections 1(3)(b), 2-A, 17-Appellant, a Nursery School situated adjacent to 
C a Higher Secondary School run by the same Society sought to be covered 
by the EJJ1ployees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act-Held 
Clerk of the Higher Secondary School found to have furnished particulars 
in regard lo the appellant School also t~ the Inspector of the respondent 
department-The two schools being located in one and the same address and 
thus having geographical proximity-Held, all these facts clearly point out 
D that the two units constitute one single establishment and, therefore, is 
covered by the Act-The Jae~ that the Higher Secondary School has been 
excluded from the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and 
Miscellaneous Provisions ~ct cannot be of any help to the appellant-When 
the entire establishment is covered by the Act and only part of the establishment 
E is excluded, the appellant cannot claim non-applicability of the Act on the 
ground that it falls short of the minimum number of employees. 
The appellant, a Nursery School situated zdjacent to a Higher Secondary 
School run by the same Society was sought to the covered by the Employees' 
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 considering the two 
F units to constitute one and the same establishment. The appellant was 
aggrihed as according to it the two were different institutions managed by 
two different Managing Committees. The Provident Fund Commissioner held 
that the two institutions constituted one and the same establishment and, 
therefore, was covered by the Act. The order of the Provident Fund 
Commissioner was challenged unsuccessfully before the High Court. Hence 
G the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant had four 
employees and it being a separate establishment was not covered by the 
provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions 
Act; that the Higher Secondary School had been excluded from the purview 
fl 
478 
NOOR NtWAS NURSERY PUB. SCHOOL v. REG. PROV. COMMR. 
479 
of the Act in view of the fact that the provident fund in respect of all the A 
employees was subscribed under another scheme; that if the two units were 
put together as a single establishment, the Act would be applicable and 
otherwise not, inasmuch as it fell short of the number of minimum of 
employees for the applicability of the Act under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that when the Provident B 
Fund Inspector visited the Higher Secondary School, the Head Clerk therein 
gave particulars not only in regard to the said school but also in regard to 
the appellant-school; hence the nexus between the two schools. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : I.I. In the present caff, when two units are located adjacent to 
one another and there are only two. teachers with an Aaya, a Clerk and a Peon, 
it is difficult to believe that the Society which runs 30 schools would run a 
separate school consisting of such a small number of staff. If the unit of the 
appellant-school was not part of the unit of Higher Secondary School, the Head D 
Clerk could not have been in possession of the particulars of the appellant-
school and could not have furnished such particulars to the Inspector when 
he visited the school in connection with the grant of the code number. 
Undisputably, the two units are run by the same Society and they are located 
in one and the same address thereby establishing geographical proximity. All 
these facts clearly point out to one factor that the two units constitute one E 
single establishment. After all appellant-school caters to nursery classes, 
while the higher classes are provided in Higher Secondary School. Thus, the 
link between the two cannot be ruled out. (481-G, H; 482-A, Bl 
1.2. Whether two units are one or distinct will have to be considered in 
the light of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Employees' Provident Funds F 
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act which declares 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 parts of the same est

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