A. R. LAKSHMANAN, TARUN CHATTERJEE
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—In the present matter, the appellant is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) and the respondents are Sanathan Dharam Girls Secondary School, a Non-Governmental Educational Institution and the State of Rajasthan among others.
2. Brief facts in the matter are as follows:
The Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act (in short ‘the EPF Act’) came into force in 1952. In 1982, vide Gazette notification by the Government, Educational Institutions were added in the Schedule of the Act under section 1(3). The schedule reads thus:
“(i)any University;
(ii)any college whether or not affiliated to a University
(iii)any school, whether or not recognized or Aided by the Central or State Government
(iv)any scientific institution
(v)any institution in which research in respect of any matter is carried on.
(vi)any other institution in which the activity of imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on.”
Further in 1988, clause (b) of section 16(1) of the EPF Act, 1952 was substituted by new clauses (b) (c) and (d). The amended provisions read as under:
“16(1)(b): to any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central G
State of Bihar v. Bhabapritananda Ojha
Bhagwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Shamrao Vithal Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Kasargode Panduranga Maliya
State of Mysore v. Allum Karibasappa
M.P. Shikshak Congress & Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.