Kakatiya University, rep. by its Registrar vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(AP) 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Ms. G. ROHINI, J.
Kakatiya University, rep. by its Registrar -Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization and others -Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 16441 and 18032 of 2006
Decided on 22-11-2006.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.N. Reddy, S.C. Provident Fund Organisations for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
G.P. For Higher Education for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Chintalapudi lakshmi Kumari, Counsel for Respondent No.5.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – A.P. Universities Act, 1991 – Sections 49, 7 A, 7 Q, 7-1, 16 (1), 2(b), 2(f), 2(fff) – Recovery of Arreas – Kakatiya University, Hanamkonda, Warangal District is the petitioner in these two writ petitions which are filed aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for recovery of arrears towards PF contributions in respect of casual workers and daily wage workers including temporary employees working in the University – Held, Validity/sustainability of the orders impugned cannot be enquired into in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the same requires consideration of various disputed questions of fact – Proper course for the petitioner is to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as available under the Act – If any such appeals are preferred, the same shall be considered and decided on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made/findings recorded by this Court –Granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal – Writ Petitioners Disposed of

ORDER

Kakatiya University, Hanamkonda, Warangal District is the petitioner in these two writ petitions which are filed aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) for recovery of arrears towards PF contributions in respect of casual workers and daily wage workers including temporary employees working in the University.

2. The petitioner University which was established under the Kakatiya University Act, 1991, is governed by the provisions of A.P. Universities Act, 1991. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, it is stated that to meet the administrative requirements the University has been engaging the service of casual workers and daily wage workers from time to time and the said appointments are purely temporary in nature. As clarified by the Government of A.P., unless the services of the above said employees are regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance, dated 22-4-1994, they are not eligible for getting minimum pay scale and they are not also entitled for provident fund benefits. It was made clear by the Government of A.P. by letter dated 6-3-1998 that the University shall not make PF contribution in respect of daily wage employees as they are not regular employees.

As per Section 49 of A.P. Universities Act, 1991 read with the instructions of the Government of A.P. vide letter dated 7 -11-2003, the petitioner University shall not take any decision on any issue of financial implications without obtaining specific approval of the Government.

3. In spite of the above directions, to avoid any unpleasant action from the officials of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, the petitioner University started paying employers contribution of PF in respect of casual and daily wage workers from the year 2004 onwards subject to approval of the Government of A.P.

4. While so, the respondents made a demand for alleged arrears of PF contributions in respect of casual and daily wage workers working with the University from the year 1991. Though the petitioner University had explained to the respondents that they cannot be made liable to pay the PF contributions, without appreciating the same in the correct perspective, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 7 -A of the Act passed an order determining the liability of the petitioner University for the period from January, 1991 to December, 2003 in respect of casual workers and daily wage workers in the hostels of the petitioner University. As per the said order, a sum of Rs. 7,38,617/- is payable towards arrears of both employers and employees contribution apart from a sum of Rs.3,85,420/- towards interest under Section 7 -Q of the Act. The petitioner was also called upon to pay further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates they became due to the date of actual remittance.

The said order was communicated to the petitioner University by proceedings dated 1-5-2006. Pursuant thereto, the Enforcement Officer issued a prohibitory order dated 17 -7 -2006 under Section 8-F (3) of the Act prohibiting the State Bank of Hyderabad from releasing a sum of Rs.11,24,037/- from the account of the petitioner University and to transfer the said money to the 3rd respondent.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner University filed W.P.No.16441 of 2006.

5. During pendency of the above said writ petition, a fresh order dated 14-8-2006 has been passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7 -A of the Act determining the liability of the petitioner University towards the arrears of Provident Fund in respect of other employees engaged by the petitioner University on daily wage basis for the period from January, 1991 to December, 2003. A sum of Rs.1,43,00,539/was assessed as due towards PF contributions apart from a sum of Rs.74,47,880/- towards the interest payable under Section 7 -Q of the Act. The said order dated 14-8