IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
Fulia Tangail Shari Bayan Silpa Samabay Samity Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 18445 of 2017 With CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - Challenge to coverage of Cooperative Society under Section 1(3)(b) - Sections 1, 16
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Primary Handloom Cooperative Society, challenged the communication from the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner stating its coverage under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act). The petitioner claimed exemption as a Cooperative Society and disputed the applicability of the Act based on the number of employees and the inclusion of textiles in Schedule I.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Act does not apply to Cooperative Societies employing less than 50 persons without the aid of power, as per Section 16. The communication making the Act applicable to the petitioner was based on non-application of mind and was set aside. However, the petitioner was directed to comply with the Act from the date of its online application.
Issues: Challenge to the communication extending the Act's coverage to the petitioner based on Section 1(3)(b) and the inclusion of textiles in Schedule I.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act does not apply to Cooperative Societies employing less than 50 persons without the aid of power. The communication extending the Act's coverage to the petitioner was based on non-application of mind and was set aside.
Final Decision: The communication extending the Act's coverage to the petitioner was set aside, but the petitioner was directed to comply with the Act from the date of its online application.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the communication dated 20th June, 2017 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) whereby, the petitioner was informed that its establishment stood covered with effect from 1st April, 2009 under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) under the Schedule I, Head “Textiles”.
2. The petitioner is a Primary Handloom Cooperative Society. The petitioner was originally registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, which had since, been repealed and had been substituted by the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Subsequently, the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 had been notified thereby, repealing the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
3. The petitioner claims that all its members are weavers by profession, and are all displaced persons and hail from Tangail, formerly in East Pakistan, presently in Bangladesh.
4. In usual course, the members of the petitioner receive wages from the Society on nominal basis, depending upon the quality and quantity of the sarees produced by them.
5. It is the petitioner’s contention that notwithstanding not being covered by the provisions of the said Act, a coverage survey was conducted by the provident fund authorities on 11th May, 2017. Pursuant to the aforesaid, by a communication in writing dated 1st June, 2017, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) had forwarded the petitioner the information regarding allotment of the Provident Fund Code Number and had by such letter called upon the petitioner to submit the compliance status, along with documentary evidence as detailed therein.
6. Upon receipt of such notice the petitioner, however, by communication in writing dated 2nd June 2017, had attempted to make out a case that the petitioner was complying with the State Government circular with regard to payment of provident fund. It was also clarified that the petitioner being a Co-operative Society was otherwise exempted from the provisions of the said Act, and by reasons of the petitioner employing only fourteen regular and eight temporary employees, the petitioner cannot be brought into the purview of the said Act.
7. Subsequently, by a communication in writing dated 20th June, 2017, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) had notified the petitioner that pursuant to the online application made by the petitioner, the establishment stood covered with effect from 1st April, 2009 under Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act under the Schedule Head “Textiles” and accordingly, had called upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder.
8. The petitioner challenges this communication primarily on the consideration that even if coverage of the said Act has been extended to the petitioner based on the petitioner’s application, the same could not date back to the year 2009 on the basis of inclusion of textiles in the Schedule I of the said Act.
9. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to Section 1(3)(b) read with Section 16 of the said Act, submits that the said Act can be made applicable to a Co-operative Society provided the society engages 50 or more persons. By drawing attention of this Court to the survey report conducted by the enforcement officer at the petitioner’s establishment on 11th May, 2017, it is submitted that the respondents themselves had identified that the petitioner engages no more than 22 employees. Unfortunately, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) by overlooking the relevant provisions of the said Act, has held that the petitioner’s establishment to be covered under Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act on the basis of “Textiles” being included in Schedule I of the said Act. According
The Act does not apply to Cooperative Societies employing less than 50 persons without the aid of power, as per Section 16.
The applicability of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to a Cooperative Society is subject to the conditions specified in Section 16, and reliance on specific sections or....
The court confirmed that a Co-operative Society registered under its own Act is not subject to the Employees Provident Fund provisions if its employees opt for a state pension scheme.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the members of a co-operative society cannot be construed as employees, and the absence of an employer-employee relationship is crucial in det....
The court emphasized the need for the EPF authorities to determine the applicability of the EPF Act to the petitioner Cooperative Society under Section 16(1)(a) and proceed with the determination of ....
The importance of ensuring that all relevant arguments are considered and allowing both parties to present their case before reaching a decision.
The principal employer is responsible for ensuring provident fund contributions for contract workers, as they are considered employees under the Act.
The term 'without the aid of power' under Section 16(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, implies power used in the manufacturing process or generating income....
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.