The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to exemption under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952, based on the recognition of educational institutions by the State Government and compliance with Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - This letters patent appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent raises a challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.550/1999. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge was pleased to uphold the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal-Tribunal dated 11.09.1998 resulting in dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the appellants herein.

2. The facts in brief are that on 19.02.1982 the Central Government issued Notification under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act of 1952). It specifies various classes of establishments wherein 20 or more persons employed so as to make the provisions of the Act of 1952 applicable to them. Classes of establishments included any school whether recognized or not or aided by the Central or State Government. Pursuant thereto an inspection was carried out by the authorities under the Act of 1952 as regards the schools run by the respondent-Education Society. Thereafter notice under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 was issued to the Society on 19.10.1995 seeking to apply the provisions of the Act of 1952 to the schools run by the Society. This show cause notice was replied by the Society on 15.12.1995. It was pointed out that in view of provisions of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the Act of 1977) the employees of the various schools were governed by the Provident Fund Scheme of the State Government. On 26.03.1996 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 proceeded to hold that the Act of 1952 was applicable to the institutions/schools run by the Society from August 1986. Thereafter on 22.07.1996 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order making the Act of 1952 applicable to the institutions/schools run by the Society and directing compliance of the same from 01.09.1986. The Society being aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication preferred Writ Petition No.2690/1996 but since the Tribunal was constituted for entertaining appeals, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal. The Society thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal after referring to the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 as well as Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules of 1981) held that the schools being duly recognized by the State Government were under its control and hence they stood excluded from the operation of the Act of 1952. The appeal was accordingly allowed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication preferred Writ Petition No.550/1999 in this Court. The learned Single Judge after finding that there was regular deduction of provident fund for the employees of various schools run by the Education Society proceeded to hold in the context of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 alongwith Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 that the order passed by the Tribunal was legal and proper not requiring any interference. The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ petition on 19.07.2010. Being aggrieved the original petitioners have preferred this letters patent appeal.

3. Shri H.N.Verma, learned counsel for the appellants referred to various documents on record and submitted that what was required to be considered was whether the Society was complying with the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules 1981 assuming that the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 were applicable. He submitted that relevant period that was the subject matter of dispute was from August 1986 to September 1995 while the material on recor