JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Background:

2. Two schools Dina Nath Public School (DNPS) and Manav Seva Senior Secondary School (MSPS) have preferred the present writ petitions challenging the order dated 18th April, 2016 passed by the Employment Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘EPFAT’). Vide the said impugned order, the EPFAT had upheld the order dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter, ‘RPFC’) in an inquiry under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’).

3. The brief background leading to these disputes are that the school DNPS came to be established in 1994 and it obtained recognition initially for middle school on 8th June, 2001. Subsequently, it was recognized till class 10 thereafter, till class 12 by the Faridabad Sub Divisional Educational Officer and, in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

4. The DNPS school was run by Dina Nath Public Trust (hereinafter, ‘DNPT’) which was registered in 1983. The said trust had also set up a DNPS at B Block, 27 Feet Road, Dabua Colony, Faridabad (hereinafter, ‘DNPS Dabua Colony’) in 1980s itself.

5. A teacher of DNPS who was terminated, after an internal inquiry, after obtaining permission from the District Education Officer Faridabad filed a complaint that both schools i.e., DNPS and MSPS were run by the DNPT. She alleged that the school DNPS Dabua Colony, now known as MSPS, was also run by Mr. Ujjal Pal Singh who was the trustee of that school and Ms. Radha Sachdev was the principal. She further alleged that 31 teachers were common between DNPS and MSPS and, thus, MSPS was nothing but a branch of the DNPT. As per the said complaint, Mr. Ujjal Pal Singh and Ms. Radha Sachdeva exercised control over both the schools. Thus, they were functionally, financially, and administratively integrated. It was alleged by the Complainant that the differentiation between the two schools were being maintained only to deprive the employees of provident fund benefits. The said ex-teacher who was the Complainant filed repeated complaints which resulted in an investigation by the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (hereinafter, ‘EPFO’), Haryana.

First inquiry:

6. Initially, a notice was issued by the EPFO on 9th July, 2009 to DNPS for verification of the school documents. The school started responding to the notices issued by the EPFO. DNPS and the EPFO continued to be in correspondence. Raids were also conducted by the EPFO on the schools.

7. The stand of the EPFO was that all the records were not produced and the stand of the DNPS was to the contrary i.e., that relevant registers, staff attendance, records etc., have all been produced.

8. DNPS alleged unending disruption by the EPFO of the school activities based on a complaint by a disgruntled ex-teacher. The school also alleged that unnecessary visits were being conducted during examinations of school students. The school stated that it had produced the teachers’ attendance register, pay roll register, acquittance rolls registers, bank accounts, income tax returns, summary of teachers including class four employees, cash book and leisure etc., and photocopies of the same has also been taken. In reply to letter dated 15th June, 2010 issued by EPFO, a letter dated 29th June, 2010, by DNPS stated that all records were produced and verified by the officials of the EPFO. In the said letter, it was reiterated that the EPO officials visited without prior notice and created disruption during class hours. However, it is stated that communications were unfruitful.

9. A show cause notice was then issued on 20th July, 2010 demanding the Petitioner to submit its records within seven days and as to why prosecution should not be launched against the school (DNPS).

10. On 21st July, 2010, the EPFO took the position that the school had employed 20 persons as of 1st March, 2009 and that the provisions of the Act would be ap