The Employees Provident Fund Act prohibits Civil Court jurisdiction over disputes concerning provident fund applicability, requiring resolution by designated authorities.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

1. The defendants in O.S.No. 2585 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No. 2585 of 2004 had been filed by the respondents seeking a Judgment and Decree restraining the defendants therein from recovering the due of Rs.90/- lakhs as employer and employee contribution from the second and third plaintiffs by grant of permanent injunction and for costs of the suit. By Judgment dated 22.02.2006, the learned II Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore had decreed the suit.

3. The appellants herein / defendants in the suit then filed A.S.No. 87 of 2006 before the Sub Court at Coimbatore. By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the Appeal Suit was dismissed with costs, necessitating the filing of the Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 25.06.2009 on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue."

O.S.No. 2585 of 20024:

5. The plaintiffs NEPC Airlines, NEPC Textiles Ltd., and NEPC Tea Garden had filed the suit against the Commissioner, Provident Fund Organisation and other officials of the Provident Fund Office, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an alleged due of Rs.90/- lakhs as employer and employee contribution from the second and third plaintiffs.

6. In the plaint, it had been contended that the first plaintiff, a limited company was carrying on business in Airlines. The second plaintiff also a limited company was carrying on business dealing with textiles. The third plaintiff was maintaining Tea Garden and dealing with tea products. It had been stated that the Provident Fund Contribution had been effected with respect to the employees of the defendants. The share of the employers had also been made in the interest and welfare of the employees. It had been further stated that the Airline Division of the first plaintiff suspended its operation.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know about a notification of the Central Government under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 which was issued under Section 131 (3)(b) dated 22.03.2001 that Provident Fund is applicable to establishments of Aircrafts or Airlines other than Aircrafts and Airlines controlled by Central and State Government with effect from 01.04.2001. It had therefore been contended that Aircrafts and Airlines were not covered under the Provident Fund Act prior to the said notification namely, 01.04.2001.

8. The first plaintiff had addressed a letter on 19.12.2001 calling upon the first defendant to refund the amount of employers share lying with the defendants. It had been stated that the third defendant had sent a reply rejecting the demand of the first defendant. A further letter was sent by the first plaintiff for refund of the share in the Provident Fund. It had been further stated that the defendants are not entitled to retain the amount lying in deposit. It had been further stated that the defendants are Government Officers representing the Central Government and functioning under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. It was contended that they are bound by the notification issued by the Central Government. It had been stated that the defendants are taking arrangements to recover alleged dues from the second and third plaintiffs. It had been further contended that the dues had been crystallised to Rs.90/- lakhs. It is under those circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering t