Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture v. Asstt Commissioner / Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr

$-28 & 30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(c) r337t20rr lf
,\ / THE DIRECTO&CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR /
DRYLAND AGRICULTURE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur, Adv. VCTSUS COMMISSIONER REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda and Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advs. w.P. (c) r2s6t20r2
CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR DRYLAND AGRICULTURE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur, Adv.

ASSTT COMMISSIONER /REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda and Mr. Rajat Manchanda. Advs.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
13.09.2013 Vide order dated 28n February,2005 passed under Section 7A of the
Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act), Assistant Provident Fund
2013:DHC:7729 i tx Commissioner (APFC), Hyderabad (respondent no.1) directed tne petitfol( to pay EPF dues and interest under Section TAof the Act for the period
November,1997 to September,2004 in respect of same employees.
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (EPFAT), New Delhi under Section 7I of the Act which has been dismissed by the order impugned in the W.P. (C) 133712011. .
Similarly, APFC, Hyerabad calculated dues for the period November, 2OO7 to October, 2008 vide order dated 19ft March ,20!0. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before EPFAT under Section 7 I of the Act has been dismissed by the order impugned in WP (C) No.125612012.
The EPF dues have been calculated by the APFC in respect of the casual labourers. The case of the petitioner before the APFC was that casual labourers were granted temporary stafus and became entitled to GPF as per the Scheme of 1993 of the petitioner. However, APFC has not dealt with this issue. The effect of applicability of GPF to the casual labours in terms of the Scheme, 1993 of the petitioner has not been discussed. Contention of the petitioner on account of switch over such employees were not entitled to
EPF and no such EPF was deducted from their wages has not been answered.
J
In similar facts relating to the petitioner itself for differe
^r r"rr"O.!7 Single Judge of this Courtvide order dated 28fr July,2011 passed in W.P.
(C) 2410712005 titled IWs Central Rice Research Institute vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr., has held thus:-

"15. However, the RPFC appears to have considered only the submissions made on a subsequent date, i.e., 23'" March, 2000 regarding the applicability of the Act to the establishment. The

Appellate Tribunal too appears to have confined the appeal to the question of the applicability of the Act. In the considered view of this Court, it was necessary for the RPFC to have dealt with the submissions of the Petitioner regarding the switch over by the casual labourers to the GPF Scheme after attaining temporary status to the GPF scheme. The clauses of the scheme were required to be examined and analysed in order to determine whether there was any violation of the provisions of the Act by the Petitioner.