J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P13 order issued in a review petition filed under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Ext.P15 order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.131(7)2007 through which, Ext.P13 order has been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The first petitioner is the Headmistress of the St.Mary’s School, Puliyarakonam, Thiruvananthapurm. The second petitioner is the Manager of the said school. When the number of employees of the school reached the statutory limit of twenty, the employees of the school were covered under the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952 with effect from 01.06.2004 (See Ext.P1). This is not in dispute. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A of the EPF Act, 1952 on the premise that the St.Mary’s School was part of the Malankara Syrian Catholic Corporate Educational Agency of the Archdiocese of Thiruvananthapuram, which goes by the name ‘MSC Corporate Management’. In proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act, it was concluded that, since the school was part of the aforesaid management, which comprises of several other institutions also, the coverage will commence from June 1993. Accordingly, the contributions payable from June 1993 to May 2004 were determined by Ext.P4 order dated 18.08.2005. The petitioners, therefore, approached the first respondent by filing a review petition under Section 7B of the EPF Act, 1952, which was rejected by Ext.P13 order. The appeal filed against the order rejecting the application for review before the Appellate Tribunal was rejected by Ext.P15 order. It is thus that the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, while deciding the review petition under Section 7B of the 1952 Act and the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal against that order did not consider Exts.P6 to P12 documents, which would categorically establish that the St.Mary’s School, Puliyarakonam, Thiruvananthapurm was not part of the MSC Corporate Management. It is submitted that, even the authorities of the MSC Corporate Management had given a certificate stating that the St.Mary’s School is not part of the Corporate Management. It is submitted that the appointing authority insofar as the St.Mary’s School is concerned is the second respondent, who is the Manager and the Parish Priest of the St.Mary’s Church, Puliyarakonam, Thiruvananthapurm. It is submitted that without any just reason or basis and without considering the documents produced, the first respondent had mechanically concluded that the St.Mary’s School was part of the MSC Corporate Management and thus shifted the date of coverage from 01.06.2004 to 02.06.1993. It is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal also did not consider the contentions raised in a proper manner and without any basis found that there is managerial control, financial inter-dependency etc. It is submitted that the impugned orders are, therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization would submit, with reference to the provisions of Section 2A of EPF Act, 1952, that an establishment includes all departments and branches whether situated in a same place or different places. It is submitted that there was substantial material before the authorities to conclude that the St.Mary’s School was part of the MSC Corporate Management, which is running several other institutions including schools, colleges etc. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the coverage of the St.Mary’s School was rightly shifted from from 01.06.2004 to 02.06.1993. It is submitted that, no ground has been made out for interference in the factual findings of the first respondent, as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners a