Important Points:
The applicability of Employees' Pension Scheme framed under Section 6A of the Act, 1952 specifically by a notification or by way of a judgment of a competent court, such exemption will be applicable only to the Pension Scheme. Exemption from Employees' Pension Scheme framed under Section 6A of the Act, 1952 will not exclude an establishment from all other Schemes framed under the Act, 1952, automatically. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner-Society has been granted exemption form the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1952 by the appropriate Government.

The writ petitioner is Calicut City Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.D 2777, Kozhikode. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 inspection report issued by the Enforcement Officer of the 1st respondent-Employees' Provident Fund Organisation is liable to be quashed and the 1st respondent should be prohibited from issuing any further demand to the petitioner relating to the remittance of Provident Fund amount.

2. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered and functioning as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act, 1969', for short). The 1st respondent has demanded the petitioner to remit Rs.92,54,606/- towards contribution of Provident Fund account as provided under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act, 1952', for short).

3. The petitioner says that the State Government has issued G.O.(P) No.44/95/Co-op. dated 14.03.1995 whereby a pension scheme has been introduced covering the employees of the Co-operative Societies in the State, by name 'the Kerala Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994'. The petitioner society has enrolled its employees as members of the aforesaid Pension Scheme, 1994. According to the petitioner, by introduction of the Pension Scheme, 1994, the employees of the petitioner joined the said scheme and made their contributions as per the scheme. As per Section 61 of the Act, 1969, the Society which established Pension Scheme will establish separate Provident Fund. It is also provided that contributory Provident Fund established under Section 61(1) of the Act shall cease to operate in the case of existing employees who are brought under the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner contends that, the employees of the petitioner-Society covered by the Pension Scheme, 1994 are expressly excluded from the purview of the Act, 1952.

4. The petitioner contends that when the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1, the petitioner communicated with the 2nd respondent-Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Ext.P4, requiring to give proper instructions regarding the steps to be taken based on Ext.P1 proceeding of the 1st respondent. However, the 2nd respondent has not responded to Ext.P4. In the circumstances, the petitioner-Society seeks to quash Ext.P1 and to prohibit the 1st respondent from issuing any demand under the Act, 1952.

5. The 1st respondent entered appearance and defended the case filing counter affidavit. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act, 1952 and the scheme framed there under. The petitioner has been assigned code No.KR/KK/1046524. On failure of the establishment to comply with the provisions of the Act, 1952, the Enforcement Officer of the 1st respondent inspected the establishment and directed the petitioner to remit Rs.92,54,606/-, as per Ext.P1. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal framed under the Act, 1952. The petitioner is having core banking business. Ext.P2 notification relating to the Kerala Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, is applicable for the Primary Co-operative Societies in Kerala. The petitioner has not produced any material to establish that it is a Primary Co-operative Society. Further more, the notification of the Government of Kerala makes it clear that it exempts the petitioner only from the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 of the 1st respondent. It does not exempt the petitioner from the Act, 1952 and other Schemes made under the Act.

6. The 1st respondent further contended that the judgment reported in Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board v. Udayakumar [2012 (3) KLT 820] exempts the petitioner only from the provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 framed by the 1st respondent. Further more, the 1st respondent has filed R.P. No.1135/20