Allahabad High Court
U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna ... vs Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Labor ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31407
Judgment reserved on 16.04.2025
Judgment delivered on 27.05.2025
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9460 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Prashant Kumar Srivastava
CONNECTED WITH
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8407 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhike Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Labor Employment New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Ashwani Kumar Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8568 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi K Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Raj Kumar Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9305 of 2024
Petitioner :- Director State Literacy And Mission Authority,Lko. U.P. And Another
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment,New Delhi And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Anurag Srivastava
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9364 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment,New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Prashant Kumar Srivastava
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10767 of 2024
Petitioner :- Director State Literacy And Mission Authority, Lko. And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Mini. Of Labor And Emp. New Delhi And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Anurag Srivastava,Palash Srivastava,Prem Shanker Shukla
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11214 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11266 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11288 of 2024
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Dir. And Another
Respondent :- Uoi Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 467 of 2025
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labour And Employment,New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 664 of 2025
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad,Nishatganj Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Prem Shanker Shukla
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 956 of 2025
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad/Sarva Shikha Abhiyan Thru. Project Director And Anr.
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment, New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Prashant Kumar Srivastava
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1153 of 2025
Petitioner :- U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Thru. State Project Director And Another
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment, New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Prem Shanker Shukla
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2064 of 2025
Petitioner :- Director, State Literacy And Mission Authority, Lko. Up. And Another
Respondent :- Union Of In India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labor And Employment Govt. Of India And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Anurag Srivastava,Kapish Srivastava
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This bunch of petitions raises almost similar issues as such the same are being decided by means of this common judgment.
3. The facts as recorded in Writ-C No.8407 of 2024 are being reproduced for the sake of gravity. Petitioner No.1 - Uttar Pradesh Sabhi Ke Liye Siksha Pariyojna Parishad is a society registered under the Society Registration Act by the State Government on 17.05.1993 and is fully owned and controlled by the State Government. The Board of Members comprises of the Chief Secretary as Chairman and the Executive Committee is also comprised of High Level Government Officials. The Society was established for promoting the object of the universalisation of the primary education for all the children upto 14 years of age. The dispute raised in the present writ petition relates to the liability of payment of provident fund dues for the April, 2015 upto February, 2018. It is further stated that the budget for running the society is provided by the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 60:40 respectively. It is admitted position that prior to April, 2015 by virtue of an exemption notification, the operations of the society was exempted from the applicability of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act") and subsequent to February, 2018, the employees of the petitioner-society are kept through outsourcing agency, which is liable to pay the EPF contribution in respect of said employees and the same are also being paid. The issue arose when an order was passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act wherein a liability of Rs.8,86,75,780/- was imposed with regard to non-payment of the EPF dues for the said period.
5. The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioners was that there are no budgetary allocation made by the Central Government and the State Government for the period April, 2015 upto February, 2018 and in the absence of any budgetary allocation, the amounts as demanded could not be paid. Similar demands were also raised and quantified against the various offices at various districts. It is also pleaded that the petitioner no.1 is the Umbrella Body having its location at Lucknow and the same is being managed in different districts under the name and style of "M/s U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad" (petitioner no.2), however, the administrative control of their functioning at the district level is controlled by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in terms of the directions given by the State Government.
6. It is argued that the apart from the administrative control by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, all the other supervisory control are exercised by the petitioner no.1 and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has no control with regard to either providing the finances or in any way managing the finances. It is argued that numerous orders were passed against the petitioner no.1 and there offices at various districts under Sections 7-A, 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act, as such, the issue with regard to the applicability of the Act and the manner of passing orders was agitated in Writ-C No.13288 of 2020 in which an order came to be passed on 06.09.2021. Subsequently, all the matter were relegated before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short 'the CGIT') for deciding all the issues including the issue with regard to the applicability of the Act. The said order was passed by the High Court keeping in view that larger issue engaging the attention in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh and thus, it was considered that the matter be decided in consolidated manner. The said order was passed on 26.05.2023 in Writ-C No.13288 of 2020 in which an interim order had been passed earlier in terms of the directions given by this Court. It is argued that the CGIT finally heard one of the appeal being Appeal No.159 of 2018 and by means of an order dated 12.06.2024, the earlier order passed on 04.09.2018 under Section 7-A of the EPF Act was set aside. The said order is contained as Annexure-10 to Writ-C No.8407 of 2024.
7. It is essential to notice that the applicability of the EPF Act had also been decided earlier by the authority specified under the EPF Act by means of a detailed order wherein it was held that the petitioners were amenable to the Act.
8. It is argued that no fresh exercise as was directed in the order of CGIT has ever carried out and various recovery certificates have been issued. It is argued that in some matters, the petitioners had approached this Court, however, they were relegated to avail the remedy of appeal and in most of the cases, the appeals have been dismissed as being barred by limitation. The details of the orders challenged therein and the co-related issues raised are being recorded as under:
Writ-C No.9460
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 20.03.2023 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Appeal No.59 of 2023 by the CGIT, Kanpur
Assessment Period - December, 2016 to October, 2019.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 28.10.2022 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.48 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to March, 2018.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 28.09.2022 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.49 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to March, 2018.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 30.07.2024 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act.
(II) Appeal not filed.
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to November, 2017.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 15.05.2023 passed under Section 14-B of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.71 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - April, 2019 to October, 2021.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 10.10.2023 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.82 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to October, 2016.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 13.10.2021 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Appeal No.62 of 2023 by the CGIT, Kanpur
Assessment Period - August, 2017 to January, 2019.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 19.09.2024 passed under Sections 8-B to 8-G of the EPF Act.
(II). Appeal not filed.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 30.10.2023 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Appeal No.56 of 2023 by the CGIT, Kanpur
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to March, 2018.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 14.10.2022 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.7 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to March, 2018.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 30.05.2022 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. (II). The order dated 31.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.25 of 2024 by the CGIT, Lucknow
Assessment Period - March, 2017 to May, 2020.
Issue - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 27.02.2023 passed under Sections 14-B & 7-Q 7-A of the EPF Act.
(II). Appeal not filed.
Assessment Period - 01.12.2016 to 31.08.2022
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 12.05.2022 passed under Section 14-B & 7-Q 7-A of the EPF Act.. (II). The order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.81 of 2023 by the CGIT, Lucknow in respect of the order passed under Section 14-B and the order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.80 of 2023 in respect of the order passed under Section 7Q.
Assessment Period - April, 2020 to June, 2021 & April, 2020 to June, 2021.
Issue - Appeals dismissed as barred by limitation.
Prayer for quashing- (I). The order dated 28.04.2023 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act.
(II). Appeal not filed.
Assessment Period - April, 2015 to October, 2016
9. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the matter was heard. Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey had advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners in details and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh was heard on behalf of the respondents.
10. The petitioners and the respondents were directed to file written arguments after the judgment was reserved vide order dated 16.04.2025, however, no written arguments have been filed, as such, all the petitions are being decided based upon the oral arguments advanced.
11. Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate extensively argued that the EPF Act itself was not applicable in view of the definitions specifically contained in Section 1(3), which reads as under:
"1 . Short title, extent and applicable - (1) ...
(2) ...
(3) Subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies -
(a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed, and
(b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such number of persons less than twenty as may be specified in the notification."
12. In the light of the mandate of Section 1(3), it is argued that in terms of the mandate of Clause (b) of Section 1 (3), the Act would apply only when the Central Government issued notifications in the official gazette, which according to the Sri Bhasin has not been issued. He argues that earlier, the establishment of the petitioners was exempted from the operation of the Act, however, the said exemption was subsequently withdrawn. He argues that when the Act itself was not applicable, there was no question of petitioners coming within the purview of the Act and merely because, the exemption notification was withdrawn, the same would ipso facto not lead to a conclusion that the Act was not applicable. He however admits that the provident funds dues are being deducted after February, 2018 and are being paid for which there is no dispute.
13. The Counsel for the respondents Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, on the other hand, argued that the arguments of the Senior Advocate is opposed for the reason that in term of Section 1(3)(b) of the EPF Act, all the establishments employing 20 or more persons are covered by virtue of the provisions of the Act. In addition to the same, it is the discretion of the Central Government to bring within the sweep of the Act any other establishment by virtue of a notification in the official gazette. He thus argues that any organization wherein the number of people employed are less than 20, however, if the Central Government deems fit, the said establishment can be brought within the sweep of the Act through a notification in the official gazette. He further argues that the issue with regard to the applicability of the Act was extensively decided by the Commissioner, who is empowered to do so by virtue of Section 7-A of the EPF Act and even by the CGIT wherein no arguments as are being advanced before this Court, were ever advanced. He argues that apart from arguing orally, there are no pleadings to allege and argue that the CGIT was wrong for any reasons to hold the fact with regard to the applicability of the Act or that the authority under Section 7-A, in any way erred in holding that the Act was applicable for the said period. In short, he argues that arguments at this stage with regard to the applicability of the Act merits rejection for the reasons argued above and should be rejected accordingly.
14. Considering the said submissions and the arguments raised, the argument of the Senior Advocate Sri Sanjay Bhasin merits rejection as on the plain reading, it is clear that the Act applies to any establishment employing 20 or more persons. The word "or" used in Clause (b) of Section 1(3), is used as a conjunction and is split in two parts; firstly, covering the establishments employing 20 or more persons and secondly, to any class of the establishment which the Central Government may specify by a notification in the official gazette. A plain reading of the order passed by the CGIT makes it clear that no such arguments were raised before the CGIT as recorded in the said order. The said issue is decided against the petitioners by holding that the provisions of the Act would apply, moreso, when there is no dispute to the effect subsequent to February, 2018, the applicability of the Act is not in question and the dues as are prescribed are being discharged by the service providers who are providing the services of the employee through outsourcing method.
15. The second issue with regard to the quantification of the amounts and its recoveries from the accounts of various BSAs in different districts and also from the petitioners, it is essential to notice that as per the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is the Umbrella society and under the supervision, the object for which the society was created are functioning at the district levels. The BSAs has the administrative control, however, the financial control and the finances are controlled by the petitioner no.1 through the finances given by the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 60:40. Thus, it is clear that at the district level, the BSA has twin roles; one performing the part of the duties entrusted upon him by virtue of the Basic Education Act and the Rules applicable thereto, for which, the finances etc. are given by the State Government and the second role being the administrative control on the functionaries of the petitioner no.1 in the different districts. The BSA has no financial obligation of payment of salaries to the employees kept by the petitioner no.1 society either through outsourcing or directly. Similarly it has no obligation in discharging any duties in respect of the finances and the statutory compliances except that the administrative control is that of the BSA at the district level. In terms of the definition of 'establishment' as defined under Section 2-A, it is clear that when the establishment consists of different departments or has branches, all such departments and branches shall be treated as part of the same establishment. Although it is true that different numbers are provided for compliances under the Act at the district level, merely because of the same, the establishments at the district level cannot be termed as separate establishments. They continued to be part of the same establishments i.e. the petitioner no.1.
16. In the present case, as per the order of the CGIT, it was incumbent upon the authorities to take fresh steps for quantifying the amounts that were payable in terms of the prescriptions contained under Section 7-A(1)(b). It is admitted position that subsequent to order passed by the CGIT, no such fresh exercise for quantifying the amounts have been carried out so far, thus without there being a quantification, the recoveries of the amounts and the other statutory recoveries including the penalty etc., could not be recovered by the respondents.
17. I have already held that the BSA is not liable for payment of any dues of the petitioner no.1 or its establishments/ branches working at the district level and it is only the petitioner no.1, who is liable to pay any dues which are quantified and adjudicated. It is although true that the orders have been passed and the petitioners have relegated to prefer an appeal, however, the appeals have been dismissed as being beyond limitation.
18. As, the main issue with regard to the applicability of the EPF Act is being decided by this writ petitions and the quantification of the dues payable by the petitioner no.1 or the petitioner no.2 is yet to happen in terms of the prescriptions contained in the Act, the action of recovery against the petitioners cannot be justified.
19. As such, the writ petition are dismissed insofar as it relates to the applicability of the Act, however, are allowed, insofar as, as the recovery have been ordered without there being a proper quantification.
20. All the writ petitions are disposed off in terms of the said order.
Order Date:27.05.2025
akverma (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
