Madras High Court
The Secretary vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.2552 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.2552 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.21510 of 2023
The Secretary,
M/s.Madrsa – Mazahirul Uloom,
Chettichavadi Post,
Salem – 12. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compl),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office,
Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza, Anna Salai,
Swarnapuri, Salem – 4.
2.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Officer,
Salem – 1. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.2016 of 2005 dated
01.06.2023.
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2552 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.Vishnu Ramu
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
When the appellant herein had earlier invoked Section 7-A of the
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(hereinafter called as 'the Act'), questioning the applicability of the
provisions of the Act, the same came to be rejected by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Salem, through his proceedings in
TN/14687/ENF/SRO-SLM/, dated 26.12.1995. Thereafter, when the
subsequent contributions to be made by the appellant was determined by the
Authorities and summons were issued, he had challenged the same before
the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, which came to be rejected on
21.12.2004. The challenge to this order of rejection in W.P.No.2016 of 2005
was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2023, which order
is assailed in this appeal.
2. The only ground raised by the appellant before us, is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant establishment is entitled to claim exemption/exclusion under
Section 16(2) of the Act. Earlier, when he had made a similar request for
questioning the applicability of the provisions of the Act, the appropriate
Authority had rejected his claim through the order dated 26.12.1995. When
this order was challenged, the learned Single Judge had taken note of the
earlier orders passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.9629 of 1994 dated
02.12.2003, wherein, the recovery proceedings initiated by the Authorities,
was rejected on the ground that the coverage to the establishment has been
upheld in that order. This apart, perusal of the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge would reflect that the Authority had taken cognizance
of the fact that the claim of the appellant for immunity from the provisions
of the Act, has been rejected on 26.12.1995 itself and therefore, his
contention for exemption/exclusion under Section 16(2) was denied.
3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
the case of 'Reverend Father Agnelo Gracies Vs. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner For Maharashtra and Goa at Bombay' reported in
'2005(1) Mh.L.J.', to claim that the appellant/Madrasa is a place of study
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and would not fall under the ambit of an establishment.
4. The claim of the appellant is based on a factual matrix, which he
ought to have established when he had sought for immunity from the
provisions of the Act in the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, which
culminated into passing of the final order dated 26.12.1995. Having failed
to do so, it is now not open to him to canvass the applicability of the
provisions to the Madrasa at the Writ Appeal stage. Above all, the appellant
had challenged the order of the second respondent dated 26.12.1995 after 10
years, without assigning any valid or acceptable reasons and hence, his
claim also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
5. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the
Authority, so also, in the findings of the learned Single Judge. When a final
decision has already been taken in the case of the appellant with regard to
his claim for immunity from the provisions of the Act, he would be estopped
from making same claim before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In the view of the above findings and observations, the Writ Appeal
stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
03.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compl),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office,
Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza, Anna Salai,
Swarnapuri, Salem – 4.
2.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Officer,
Salem – 1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Sni
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
