Exemption for a Private Provident Fund Trust must be granted once recommended by EPFO, ensuring employee benefits and compliance with statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Company, which had established a Private Provident Fund Trust for its employees with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi. The said Provident Fund Trust was named as BT (Worldwide) Employees Provident Fund, and was later renamed as BT India Private Limited Provident Fund. The Petitioner-Company had sought exemption under Section 17 (2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, "EPF Act"), read with paragraph 27A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, on the basis of the fact that its employees were in receipt of benefits the nature of a Private Provident Fund, which were no less favourable than the benefits provided under the EPF Act 1952.

3. On the last date of hearing, ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner of Delhi has already recommended exemption for the Petitioner vide recommendation dated 13th July 2016 and the same was recommended with effect from 31st March 2008. However, only recently it was realised that the Petitioner was shown in the unexempted category on the portal of the Employee Provident Fund Office (hereinafter, `EPFO').

4. Vide the last order dated 4th August 2021, Mr. Siddharth, ld. Counsel for the EPFO was directed to seek instructions and ascertain as to whether exemption is to be granted to the Petitioner, and if so, from what date.

5. Further to the last order, Mr. Siddharth, ld. Counsel appearing for the EPFO, submits that he has received instructions that the EPFO has already recommended the Petitioner's case for grant of exemption, however the Central Government is to take a decision in this regard, and the same may take at least one month.

6. Ms. Amrita Prakash, ld. Counsel appearing for the Central Government submits that the said decision would take at least one to two months.

7. The present petition is one which involves Provident Fund benefits for all the Petitioner's employees, qua which, the Petitioner was already enjoying relaxation when it was located in Gurgaon, and after shifting to New Delhi on 24th January, 2013, it had made representations in respect of the same. On the said application made by the Petitioner, the EPFO had recommended the exemption vide its recommendation dated 13th July, 2016 in the following terms:

"11. The System of Monitoring that exists is as under:.

a) The exempted establishments are required to file a monthly return and another return on a yearly basis in the format prescribed.

b) There is a yearly inspection which also includes audit of the trust being maintained by such establishments which are relaxed under Para 79 of the Scheme or have been granted exemption by the Appropriate Government.

c) The Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees are subject to audit by a qualified independent Chartered Accountant annually. Wherever necessary the EPFO has a right to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the Employer.

d) A software for monitoring exempted establishments is in place which facilitates the employers of exempted establishment to feed-in details in respect of the establishments and the Trusts on a monthly basis. This would enable EPFO field offices and also the Head Office to monitor the exempted Establishment.

e) Further, a proforma for third party audit of exempted establishment for effective auditin7g of such establishments by independent and qualified Chartered Accoun