JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - The DAV Senior Secondary School (Lahore) Sector-8, Chandigarh has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated November 24, 2006 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the order dated August 26, 2009 dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner-Establishment (henceforth "establishment") and the further order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated February 07, 2011 dismissing the appeal.

2. The dispute in this case relates only to non-teaching staff of the establishment which comprise a total of 16 employees. The establishment receives 95% grant-in-aid since 1967 from the Chandigarh Administration. It is controlled by the DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi under the aegis of DAV College Trust and Management Societies. The Trust is exempted under Section 17 (1) (a) of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("1952 Act"). Are these 16 nonteaching employees covered by the 1952, Act is the question to be answered.

3. The establishment asserts that it is under the control of the State Government (UT) and the affairs of the establishment are governed by rules and regulations framed by the Punjab Government and by the Chandigarh Administration. This is witnessed by the letter dated June 02, 1998 whereby the Education Secretary, UT, Chandigarh sent a letter to all the Principals of Government aided privately managed colleges and schools run in Chandigarh informing them of the decision to follow the rules and regulations issued by the State of Punjab in respect of their employees. The Central Government has issued rules called The Union Territories Government Aided Schools Teachers Contributory Fund-cum-Insurance-cum-Pension Rules, 1965 ("1965 Rules"). The teachers are in receipt of the Triple Benefit Scheme since April 22, 1971. Management was under liability to subscribe to the Contributory Fund of the teachers @8% and ^rd% of the pay of teachers, 5% of which will be credited to the individual Contributory Fund accounts and the balance 3 and '/ 3 rd % to be refunded to by the Government. Payment of gratuity and pension would be the responsibility of the Government.

4. The establishment was exempted under the 1952 Act since July 12, 1989 for a period of five years. Extension for a further period of one year was granted on December 06, 1994 to be further extended by two years vide notification dated November 21, 1995 ending 1998. Thereafter, the school is covered by the 1952 Act.

5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh made a request to Chandigarh Administration vide its communication dated September 30, 1996 to issue directions to the managements of privately managed schools and colleges in the Union Territory of Chandigarh to report compliance of the various provisions of the Act and scheme or to submit applications for seeking exemption from 1952 Act, in case managements have their own Provident Fund rules/pension schemes for their employees. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi issued instructions in the year 2000 to all the regional and sub-regional offices of the EPF organization where the State Government had framed Provident Fund and pension schemes and the employees were getting benefits accordingly, the Act is not applicable to such aided schools/institutions.

6. The dispute began on January 18, 2005 when two non-teaching employees made a complaint to the authorities under the 1952 Act which led the RPFC to issue show cause notice to the establishment stating that it had violated the provisions of the 1952 Act. The establishment was summoned in August 2005 and filed a reply in December of the same year. Proceedings were initiated against the establishment under Section 7A of the 1952 Act on the basis of the complaint beginning August 23, 2005 even before the reply was received from the establishment.