The petitioner seeks exemption under Section 16(1)
(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act) and also seek consideration of Ext.P22. A relief also is sought insofar as setting aside Ext.P23 communication of the respondent Organization.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a Co-operative Society carrying on a Motor Transport Undertaking, established in the year 1957. The Society, which had 200 employees, was covered under the EPF & MP Act. A reading of Ext.P8 order would indicate that such coverage was effective from 31.10.1965 and the petitioner was assessed under code No.KR/1864. Proceedings were taken for default in making contributions from the wage period 7/2000 to 3/2001 as indicated in Ext.P8. Subsequently, WP(C).37102/04 2 Section 14B damages is also said to have been imposed. No appeal seems to have been filed from the said order. It is pertinent to notice that not even an order imposing damages under Section 14B has been produced herein.
3. At the outset, the claim of exemption cannot be sustained since, admittedly, the petitioners/establishment was covered under the EPF & MP Act and contributions were paid. Section 1(5) of the EPF & MP Act specifically provides that an establishment to which the Act applies, shall continue to be governed by the provisions, notwithstanding the fact that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the minimum required. Said restriction equally applies to an exemption sought under Section 16(1)
(a). Section 16(1)(a) exempts a Co-operative Society which is not operating on the strength of power and which has employees below 50. The petitioners had initially employed 200 persons. Hence, the factum of employee strength falling below 50 does not at all help the petitioners. Claim for exemption is hence rejected.
WP(C).37102/04 3
4. Ext.P22 is a representation allegedly filed for waiver of penal damages. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner before whom Ext.P22 has been filed, has no authority to effect such waiver. That is what has been communicated by Ext.P23. Ext.P23 further states that even the power of waiver by the Central Board, as conferred by the Statute, does not extend to the petitioner on the fact situation projected. Annexure-II produced by the respondent Organization in its counter affidavit indicates a return having been filed wherein the total employee strength is stated to be 129. For all the above reasons, there would be no requirement to direct consideration of Ext.P22. Ext.P23 also cannot be interfered with.
5. However, if the petitioners are desirous of settling the amounts in instalments, they shall approach the authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The authority shall intimate the quantification of the amounts due from the WP(C).37102/04 4 petitioners as also any interest due, as per the Statute and the same shall be directed to be paid in six monthly instalments. If the petitioners do not approach the authority or commit default in any of the instalments then necessarily the respondent Organization should proceed for recovery.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//