The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 prevails over the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978 in relation to the applicability of provident fund provisions to aided schools in Madhya Pradesh, as there was no repugnancy between the two Acts when the State Act was enacted and the repugnancy arose only later when the Central Act was extended to educational institutions.

Headnote:
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - APPLICABILITY TO AIDED SCHOOLS IN MADHYA PRADESH - RELEVANCE OF STATE ACT 20 OF 1978 AND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - INTERPRETATION OF S. 16(1)(B) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Act) to aided schools in Madhya Pradesh. The Central Act was initially not applicable to educational institutions, but a notification in 1982 extended it to such institutions. However, the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978, which dealt with the regulation of salaries and other matters for aided schools, was also in force. The issue was whether the Central Act or the State Act prevailed in this context.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Central Act prevailed over the State Act in this case. It reasoned that there was no repugnancy between the two Acts when the State Act was enacted, as the Central Act did not apply to educational institutions at that time. The repugnancy arose only when the Central Act was extended to educational institutions in 1982. However, Art. 254(2) of the Constitution, which deals with the prevalence of State laws over Central laws in certain cases, did not apply because the repugnancy arose later in point of time than the State Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was applicable to aided schools in Madhya Pradesh. 2. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978 prevailed over the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted S. 16(1)(b) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which provides that the Act shall not apply to establishments under the control of the State Government whose employees are entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund in accordance with any scheme framed by the State Government. The Court held that this provision was applicable to the aided schools in Madhya Pradesh, as the State Government had framed a scheme for Contributory Provident Fund under the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978. 2. The Court also held that the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978 did not prevail over the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in this case, as there was no repugnancy between the two Acts when the State Act was enacted. The repugnancy arose only when the Central Act was extended to educational institutions in 1982, and Art. 254(2) of the Constitution did not apply because the repugnancy arose later in point of time than the State Act.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the aided schools 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 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1988. However, the Court remitted the matter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to examine whether the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were applicable to the concerned institutions for the period 1st August, 1988 to 1st December, 1988.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The present appeals arises 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 16th of 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 1st August, 1982 to 1st December, 1988. The writ petitions filed by the appellants to 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.

2. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, under the Central Provinces and Berar Education Manual, 1928, in Appendix XVIII there was a scheme constituting a provident fund for teachers in non-pensionable service. Under Rule 3 of Appendix XVIII the proportion of contribution to be paid by the teachers was specified, while under Rule 4, contribution by the Government and by the management of the school to the provident fund was also specified. Rule 6 dealt with the management of the contributory provident fund.

3. In 1978, the Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1978 was promulgated known as the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978. The preamble of the Act states that it is an Act to make provision for regulating payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of Non-Government Schools receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and Non-Government Educational Institutions for High Education receiving grants from the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and other matters ancillary thereto. The Act was, therefore, basically meant to regulate payment of salaries to the employees of the Institutions covered by that Act.

4. Under S. 5 of the said Act of 1978 an institutional fund was constituted for payment of 445 salary to the teachers. The section prescribes the amounts which have to be deposited in the institutional fund. Under S. 5(2), the State Govenment or the Ayog, as the case may be, was required to place to the credit of the institution fund, in advance, such sums as may be required for the payment of salary to teachers and employees of the institution including the institutions contribution to the provident fund accounts at the rate at which it was required to make such contribution under any enactment for the time being in force. Therefore, the amount which was required to be contributed as the institutions contribution to any provident fund, was now required to be deposited in the institutional fund. The Act of 1978 did not prescribe any scheme for provident fund as such.

5. Therefore, the existing scheme for contributory provident fund under the Central Provinces and Berar Educational Manual, 1928 continued to remain in force except that the institutions contribution was now required to be deposited in the institutional fund. The Rules framed in 1978 under the said Act of 1978 also did not set up any new scheme for contributory provident fund. The Rules of 1978 also did not prescribe any rate of contribution to a contributory provident fund.

6. The Rules of 1978 were, however, replaced by the Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Institutional Fund Rules, 1983. Under these Rules, for the first time, specific provisions were made under Rule 8 for opening of accounts for deposit of salary and teachers contribution to the provident fund. Under Rule 10, the deductions to be made, inter alia, in respect of provident fund were also required to be set out in the statement in Form IV prescribed under the Rules and the amounts had to be dealt with as prescribed under those Rules. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10, however, was as fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1188

Cases Referred (1)