IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 29599 OF 2023

06.05.2026 Between:

M/s Institute of Resource Development And social Management, Rep. by its Chairman Sri M. Qurratulain Hasan ….. Petitioner And The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II(C&R), Regional office, Hyderabad & others.

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner is a Non-Governmental Organization formed as a Society by retired senior officials with the object of rendering service to society at large and is registered under the then Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350 F) vide Registration No. 362 of 1987. They are engaged in activities relating to development of competence in water resources, development of farmers, monitoring and evaluation of various schemes implemented for weaker sections, conducting research and studies on irrigation and watershed related activities, and providing consultancy and professional services to Government and non-governmental organizations, all on a non-profit basis.

1.1. It is stated, petitioner is a non-profit organization formed by retired senior officials to render service to society and is not engaged in any commercial or profit-oriented activity, and that it undertakes specific project works, particularly relating to collection of information on water resources and allied subjects, for which it engages certain volunteers and consultants on need basis, paying them either consultancy charges or expenses out of the project funds received. The persons so engaged by petitioner were only volunteers or consultants and not employees, inasmuch as they were neither appointed on any rolls nor required to work for any fixed hours, and they were not subject to any control or supervision of petitioner, as they independently visited various places to collect information and were also free to engage in other work during the relevant period. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can they be treated as employees of Petitioner.

1.2. Petitioner contends that the amounts paid to such volunteers towards expenses for visiting places, collecting information and assisting in research activities, as well as consultancy charges paid to consultants, were mistakenly and unknowingly recorded by the accounts department as salary payments, though in reality there was absolutely no employer and employee relationship, and the regular staff salaries were always shown separately in the accounts, clearly distinguishing them from such payments, and therefore the claim that such volunteers are employees is wholly imaginary and untenable.

1.3. In 2014, it is stated, four persons who were earlier associated with Petitioner, having an eye on the fixed deposit amount of the society, raised for the first time in March, 2014 a complaint before the EPF Department alleging that Petitioner had engaged 20 or more employees in 1996 and claiming Provident Fund coverage from that period, which is nothing but an afterthought made after about 18 years and is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when such persons had worked all along without ever raising any such issue and no Provident Fund contributions were deducted from their salaries at any time. Even though no limitation is prescribed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’), such claims cannot be permitted to be raised after an unreasonable delay of nearly two decades and ought to have been raised within a reasonable period of two to three years, and the belated claim itself demonstrates the mala fide intention of the complainants.

1.4. As per the records available with Petitioner, the Society never engaged 20 employees on any single day at any point of time, and all available and relevant records were produced before the authority during the proceedings under Section 7A, including records for about 15 years, wh