An employee of a wholly owned subsidiary is entitled to provident fund benefits from the date of appointment, despite the subsidiary's later voluntary coverage under the EPF Act.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner [M/s Consumer Electronic (Punjab) Ltd.] has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure P-5), passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

2. Briefly, petitioner-M/s Consumer Electronic (Punjab) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner-Company') applied to the Authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 1952 Act') seeking voluntary coverage of their company/establishment with effect from 01.05.1999. It appears that the petitioner-Company was allocated EPF Code PB/CHD/20801 with effect from 01.05.1999 under Section 1 (4) of 1952 Act, however, since the Competent Authority for issuance of Notification for Voluntary Coverage under Section 1 (4) of 1952 Act was Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, accordingly, necessary documents were forwarded to the said authority and the proposal for issuance of voluntary coverage qua petitioner-Company was duly published in the Gazette of India, vide Notification dated 27.04.2001.

3. From the perusal of the paperbook, it is manifest that respondent No. 3 herein (Kuldeep Singh Walia), who was an employee of petitioner-Company; sought information under the Right to Information Act by alleging that 50-60 employees of a Corporation (State Owned Undertaking) are eligible for provident fund; whereupon a squad of Enforcement Officers was deputed to examine the matter and the proceedings under Section 7-A of 1952 Act were commenced. Kuldeep Singh Walia (respondent No. 3) was seeking a direction to petitioner-Company to deposit employees' share alongwith interest from year 1991 to year 1999 on the plea that the petitioner-Company is wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Punjab Information and Communication Technology Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PICTCL') and the petitioner-Company was operating from B-99, Phase-VIII, Mohali and the said premises were owned by PICTCL and no rent was being paid by petitioner-Company to said PICTCL. It was also stated that certain officers of PICTCL were looking after and managing the affairs of the petitioner-Company and even the telephone No. 22206 owned by PICTCL was used by both i.e. PICTCL as well as petitioner-Company and the said fact was borne out from the letter head of petitioner-Company itself. Respondent No. 3 claimed that PICTCL was having all pervasive control over the petitioner-Company and he was given benefit of pay scales at par with employees of PICTCL. Respondent No. 3 further placed reliance upon a letter dated 08.01.1991, which is an offer of appointment to respondent No. 3, wherein Clause VII provided for terms and conditions and the relevant extracts thereof read as under :-

"VII Terms And Conditions

The Management may entrust you with such work and duties as it may deem proper from time to time.

a) You will be liable to be transferred to any place where the Company has its office/branches including other subsidiary companies of Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Corporation Limited."

4. It was case of respondent No. 3 that he joined as Accounts Officer on 09.01.1991 in the petitioner-Company and he was subsequently promoted as Chief Executive on 30.08.2001 and he retired on 31.03.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. He claimed entitlement to EPF benefits from the date of his joining the services with petitioner-Company and not from the date of voluntary coverage given to petitioner-Company with effect from 01.05.1999.

5. A perusal of the paperbook would reveal that the petitioner-Company did not appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'APFC') before whom proceedings under Section 7-A of 1952 Act were going on. On account of non representation on behalf of petitioner-Company, the concerned authority h