1 WP9975.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9975 OF 2021

Jijamata Public School

Dnyaneshwarnagar, Bhenda (Bk),

Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar,

Through Authorized Signatory

...Petitioner

Versus

Employees Provident Funds Organization,

through the Regional Provident Funds

Commissioner, SRO Plot No. 11,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

MIDC Satpur, Nashik.

...Respondent

.....

Mr. V. N. Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. N. K. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent-sole

..…

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.9988 OF 2021

Jijamata Krushi Tantra Vidyalaya,

Dnyaneshwarnagar, Bhenda (Bk),

Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar,

Through Authorized Signatory

...Petitioner

Versus

Employees Provident Funds Organization,

through the Regional Provident Funds

Commissioner, SRO Plot No. 11,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, MIDC Satpur, Nashik. ...Respondent

.....

Mr. V. N. Upadhye, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. N. K. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent-sole

SG Punde, PA

2 WP9975.2021

..…

CORAM : BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.

DATE : JANUARY 20^TH, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : -

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the parties.

2.

The two petitioners are the public schools run by a public

trust established in the year 2003 and has engaged itself into the

activity of imparting education. The petitioners initially did not

succumb themselves to the provisions of the Employees Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Act, 1952”), however, pursuant to the Ministry of Labour

and Employment issuing a scheme in the form of a special provision

in respect of employees’ Enrollment Campaign, 2017 in exercise of

the powers conferred by Section 5 read with sub-section 1 of Section

7 of the Act, 1952 by which the existing Employees’ Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 came to be amended, the petitioners offered

voluntarily to cover it’s employees under the provisions of the Act

through ORLE portal of the Department under Section 2-A of the Act,

1952. The petitioners on their own submitted their willingness to

SG Punde, PA

3 WP9975.2021

fulfill the requirements of the scheme and accordingly remitted the

contributions in terms of the scheme, somewhere in July-2018 and

they were allotted separate code for remittances and other purposes.

The date of coverage was declared as 16.06.2003 and the petitioners

remitted the contribution/EPF dues including employees and

employer’s share for the period from June-2003 to August-2018 in

the month of July-2018.

3.

The case of the petitioners is, while they subjected

themselves to the provisions of the Act, 1952 in the wake of the

special scheme, the assurance was given that there would be no levy

of any penalty, interest and/or damages etc., against them but

surprisingly, according to the petitioners, on 26.11.2019, the

respondent initiated inquiry under Section 14-B read with Section 7Q

of the Act, 1952 and the notice asked them to show cause as to why

damages and interest for the late remittance should not be fastened

upon them.

4.

The notice issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner,

Ahmednagar addressed to the petitioners state that the petitioners -

establishment is covered under the Act, 1952 and in terms of the

SG Punde, PA

4 WP9975.2021

provisions of the Act, 1952 r/w the Employees Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 [for the sake of brevity “Scheme of 1952”], the

employer-establishment is required to remit the contributions along

with the administrative charges withi