The court confirmed that a Co-operative Society registered under its own Act is not subject to the Employees Provident Fund provisions if its employees opt for a state pension scheme.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-

operative Societies Act, engaged in the business of purchase, processing and sale of agricultural produces. The Society has staff strength of eight employees.

2. With effect from 01.12.2019, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode, brought the Society under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The aforementioned order was objected to vide objection dated 31.01.2000 on the ground that the Co-operative Society had been employing less than 50 persons and working without the aid of the power. Hearing was conducted by the first respondent in the objection. In the meanwhile State introduced Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financial Pension Scheme, 1994. Since no order was passed by the respondents, Writ Petition bearing No.23744 of 2000 challenging Ext.P1 was preferred by the petitioner. Vide judgment dated 01.03.2006, Provident Fund Department was directed to pass a speaking order. Respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings seeking provident fund contribution, pension fund contribution, insurance fund contribution etc. for the period July, 1999 to March, 2006. Objections were raised, but of no avail, resulting into order under Section 7A of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was not an establishment set up under the Central or State Act to attract exemption under Section 16 (1). The proceedings resulted into a demand of Rs.12,40,952/- vide Ext.P4 order dated 26.11.2006. The Government of Kerala also issued Ext.P5 notification dated 19.06.2006 exempting the primary societies, but the same was not taken into consideration. WP(C) No.29790 of 2006 was preferred challenging the order Ext.P4. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.06.2013 by relying upon the judgment reported inKerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board v. Udayakumar [2012(3) KLT 820]. Ext.P4 was set aside and it was held that it was open for the employees of a Co-operative Society to opt either for Central Scheme under the EPF or the Scheme under the State Act vide Ext.P6 judgment dated 21.06.2013. In view of the aforementioned judgment, all the proceedings under stood extinguished.

3. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent initiated the proceeding vide Ext.P7 demanding a sum of Rs.8,37,312/- as contribution for the same period July 1999 to July 2006 by interpreting Ext.P6 judgment to be an exemption from remitting the contribution under the Employees Pension Scheme whereas there was no such exemption from remitting contribution. An objection to Ext.P7 proceedings dated 25.11.2013 was filed vide Ext.P8. Vide letter dated 04.02.2014, an intimation was received that it was a fresh demand pursuant to the judgment and that the judgment Ext.P6 was applicable only for pension. Thereafter Ext.P10 appeal was filed by the petitioner bearing No.249 of 2014, but the same was dismissed being barred by 120 days vide Ext.P12.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the orders Ext.P7, P8, P12 and P13 are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable on the ground that Section 16 (1) of the Act shall not be applicable to an establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Once there is already a judgment in favour of the petitioner by this Court, Ext.P6 dated 21.06.2013, it was an attempt to reassess the petitioner for the same period. In support of the contention, relied upon paragraph 5 of the judgment referred above :

“5. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the State referred to R.58 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and also Clauses 3 and 29 of the State and District Co- operative Employees Pension Scheme, which provide for compulsory transfer of funds from existing provident fund account to the appellant Board. However, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the f