SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
GUDALUR TALUK MUSLIM – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND – Respondent
WA 1974/2012



Advocates:
['M/S C K CHANDRASEKKAR', 'M/S M JAYARAMAN', '', 'FOR EPF']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

Writ Appeal No.1974 of 2012

Gudalur Taluk Muslim Orphanage Committee

Regd. Society S.No.40/76

C.H.Nagar, Chambala

Gudalur, Nilgiris District

Rep. by its General Secretary

Mr.K.A.Mohammed Kutty Hajee

.... Appellant

vs.

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Dr.Balasundaram Road

Coimbatore

2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore

3.The Enforcement Officer

Employees Provident Fund, Alexander Cottage

State Bank Road, Ootacamund, Nilgiris.

.... Respondents

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against

the order passed in W.P.No.5579 of 2009 dated 30.03.2012.

WP.No.5579/2009:Writ Petitin is preferred under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the record of the respondens

culminating with the order of the first respondent in his

proceeding No. TN/CB/72427/ENF/CC18/2008 dated nil of january

2009 and signed in December 2008 and quash the same and also

direct the respondents to treat the GTMO Primary School Gudalur

GTMO Matriculation School Gudalur and the GTMO Higher Secondary

School Gualur as three independent establishments and cover he

employees employed therein separately in accordance with the

provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For appellant

: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Jayaraman

JUDGMENT

(delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J)

Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order made in

W.P.No.5579 of 2009 dated 30.03.2012, by which, the writ court,

declined to quash the order dated Nil of the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore and consequently, refused to issue

any directions to the respondents, to treat GTMO Primary School,

GTMO Matriculation School, GTMO Higher Secondary School,

Gudalur, as three independent establishments.

2. Facts leading to the writ appeal are that Gudalur Taluk

Muslim Orphanage Committee, is a registered society,

established, in 1976, for the purpose of providing free

education to the poor and needy Muslim children. Appellant

society has started GTMO Primary School in 1984 and approval was

granted by the Director of Elementary Education, at Chennai.

According to the appellant, at the time of filing writ petition,

they were 10 teachers and one Ayah working in the primary school.

3. In 1994, GTMO Matriculation school was started, after

obtaining necessary approval from the Director of Matriculation

Schools, Chennai. There were 25 teachers and 3 staffs working in

the school.

4. High school, started, was upgraded as Higher Secondary

School in 2001, duly approved by the Director of School

Education, Chennai. At the time of filing the writ petition,

there were 24 teachers and 2 staffs working in the school.

5. According to the appellant, Enforcement Officer of the

Employees Provident Fund, Ooty, Nilgiris (respondent No.3),

visited the schools and found that 10 teachers and 1 staff were

working in Primary school, 16 teachers and 2 staff were working

in Matriculation school and 17 teachers and 1 staff were

working in Higher Secondary School. The Enforcement Officer of

the third respondent intimated that the number of staff in the

schools were more more than 20 and therefore the institutions

are covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (in short EPF Act). Though the appellant

society claimed that the three schools are different entities,

and they cannot be brought under one entity, the third

respondent did not agree. Therefore the appellant was

constrained to submit an application on 01.10.2005, enclosing a

list o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top