The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act applies to employees not covered by a pension scheme, and the maintainability of the Writ Petition was upheld under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

The appellant which is a creature of the statute viz., Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 is aggrieved by the order of the writ Court affirming the demand made by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation to the tune of Rs.10,29,26,330/- as the contribution payable by it.

2. The Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner/ 1st respondent by his order dated 06.06.2022 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 concluding that the appellant is liable to pay the employees provident fund contribution for some of the employees, who were not covered by any pension scheme.

3. This order was put in issue before the writ Court and the main contention of the appellant before the writ Court was that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act will not apply in view of Section 16(1)(c) of the said Act, which makes it inapplicable to an establishment set up under any Central, Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any Scheme or Rule framed under that Act governing such benefits. It was the contention of the appellant before the writ Court that since a Scheme exists for regulation of provident fund of the employees of the appellant, framed in terms of Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 , the provision of Section 16(1)(c) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act would operate and therefore, the order of the Provident Fund Commissioner directing payment of provident fund contribution cannot be sustained.

4. The contention was countered by the Provident Fund Organisation mainly contending that even where an Institution falling under Section 16(1)(c) has a Scheme and if that Scheme covers only a group of employees of that Organisation or Institution, the Institution or Organisation would be liable for employees provident fund contribution in respect of the employees, who are not covered by the Scheme.

5. On behalf of the employees' Union it was contended before the writ Court that Regulation 71 of the Regulations framed by the erstwhile Pallavan Gram Bank would continue to apply as the appellant is only a new avatar of Pallavan Gram Bank and the said Pallavan Grama Bank has under Regulation 71 accepted that it is liable to pay the employees provident fund contribution.

6. The question regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition was also raised, since appeal is provided under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the order made under Section 7-A of the Act.

7. The writ Court overruled the objection regarding maintainability following the principle of law that no inflexible Rule should be applied with rigidity to the cases which come to Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since a legal plea regarding the applicability of the enactment itself is raised in the Writ Petition, the appellant Bank should not be driven to the appellate remedy provided under the enactment concerned.

8. In answer to the submission based on the amendment notification issued in the year 2000, the writ Court held that since the amendment notification itself was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court, the situation that prevailed before the amendment stood restored and not the notification of the year 1966, which was sought to be amended by the notification dated 15.02.2000. All Banks which are doing business in one State or Union Territory with no branches or Department outside the State or Union Territory will continue to be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .

9. On the claim that the appellant Bank itself has a pension sche