REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 721 OF 2013 M/s Yeshwant Gramin …Appellant Shikshan Sanstha Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J

1. The present civil appeal arises from the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 17^th January, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 4013 of 2011. The High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant, which had assailed the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 8^th April, 2011 whereby it was held that the appellant is deemed to have defaulted in depositing the provident fund contributions of 16 (sixteen) of its part-time employees.

2. Before dealing with the legal submissions and issues, it would be apposite to set out the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal:

a) The appellant is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and runs 29 (twenty nine) schools and junior colleges in the Wardha District, Nagpur. Out of which, 28 (twenty eight) schools and colleges purportedly received 100% grant-in aid from the State Government.

b) Between 1996 and 1997, due to administrative exigency 16 part-time librarians were appointed to some of the appellant’s colleges, with the permission/approval of the State Government. These librarians worked for lesser hours as opposed to the working hours put in by regular, full-time employees. The appellant contends that the entire process of appointment and approval was monitored and supervised by the State Government. Further, the appellant did not possess any direct control over the payment of or deductions to the salaries of its employees. It is done by the State Authorities.

c) On 5^th May, 1998, the appellant forwarded a bill of one of the part-time librarians to the Education Officer, with a request to deduct the provident fund. This request was declined vide a letter dated 19^th November, 1998, with a direction not to deduct provident fund contributions of such part-time employees. Subsequently, on 5^th March, 2004, the Director of Education issued a letter clarifying that the contributory provident fund scheme was not applicable to such part-time employees. In view of the aforesaid communications, the appellant had reason to believe that it was not supposed to deduct and/or deposit provident fund contributions of its 16 part-time employees.

d) On 6^th October, 2005, the officers of Respondent No.1 visited one of the schools of the appellant and sought details of the employees and payments made on their behalf vis-à-vis provident fund contributions.

e) The appellant submitted its response to the aforesaid query vide its letter dated 18^th October, 2005, wherein the appellant mentioned that as per the law, it was not required to deduct provident fund contributions of the concerned part-time employees.

f) The appellant, however, received a summons from Respondent No.1 dated 23^rd May, 2006, to appear in connection with failure to remit provident fund dues of its employees. Further correspondence in that regard ensued between the parties and adjournments were taken in the matter.

g) Ultimately, Respondent No.1 heard the matter and passed an order dated 1^st August, 2007, holding that the appellant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,89,796/- as outstanding provident fund contributions.

h) The appellant then filed a review application dated 14^th September, 2007 against the aforesaid order, on the ground that Respondent No.1 had failed to appreciate certain material submissions and objections raised at the time of hearing. Respondent No.1 dismissed the said review with a one-page order, without granting a hearing.

i) During the abovementioned proceedings, 3 (three) out of 16 part-time librarians of the appellant were regularized w.e.f 29^th September, 2007. Another librarian was regulari