RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 16th March, 1999 of the respondent No.1, Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the respondent No.2 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applicable to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). The respondent No.2/RPFC sought to make the provisions of the Act applicable to the petitioner and upon the petitioner disputing the same, an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act was initiated by the respondent No.2/RPFC. The petitioner does not dispute that it is an establishment and/or that it has more than 20 employees. The only contention of the petitioner was/is that it is neither an establishment within the meaning of Section 1(3)(a) nor has the Central Government issued any notification under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act specifying the petitioner and hence the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner. The respondent No.2/RPFC on the contrary, initially relied upon a notification under Section 1(3)(b) bringing “establishments rendering expert services such as supplying of personnel, advise on domestic or departmental inquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, theft and payroll irregularities to factories and establishments” and subsequently on a notification which made the provisions of the Act applicable to- “(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 a 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 of training is systematically carried on.” and contended that the petitioner was engaged in the activity of imparting knowledge or training.

3. The stand of the petitioner in the proceedings before the respondents and before this Court also is, that it has been formed for the purpose of providing assistance to the poor with a view to bring about their economic upliftment; that because of the very nature of the work involved, it is necessary for the petitioner to approach each situation in the context of its peculiar facts and circumstances and therefore, the nature of assistance that is provided by the petitioner to such people takes a variety of forms including organizing them into small informal groups for mutual help, linking such groups to banks for obtaining credit, licenses, concessions etc.; linking them to various markets, helping them to solve problems and channelizing to them funds donated by charitable and development institutions. The petitioner in its letter dated 9th September, 1997 to the respondent No.2/RPFC had also stated that it is engaged in providing technical and management assistance to poor people in villages, to registered or unregistered groups of such poor people and to other societies or trusts engaged in similar works. The petitioner in its communication dated 8th January, 1998 during the 7A proceedings before the respondent No.2/RPFC also stated that training is not a systematic activity of its organization and any skills imparted to poor people are contextual to specific problems that such people face in their occupational activities. It was further represented that there are no set schedules, syllabi or training methodologies followed and each staff member in his or her day to day work in villages would impart skills as and when necessary in a manner appropriate. It was thus contended that the activity of the petitioner was sporadic in nature and situation specific and it was the exact opposite of being systematic.

4. The respondent No.2/RPFC vide its order dated 10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document