Acharya Nagarjuna University v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated

12.07.2011, in A.T.A.No.707(1)/2006 of respondent No.2, whereby it has confirmed order, dated 12.09.2011, of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri Srinivas Mantha, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is a University. Respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) for payment of provident fund contribution by the petitioner in respect of 116 NMR workers engaged by it. After considering the objections of the petitioner and the relevant record, respondent No.1 has initially determined the petitioner’s contribution of provident fund Rs.98,12,519.20 ps for the period from 01.08.1982 to 30.06.2003 by order, dated 05.09.2005, passed under Section 7A of the Act. The petitioner filed a review pointing out discrepancies in the wages paid to the NMRs.

On a consideration of the petitioner’s objections, respondent No.1 has reviewed his earlier order by reducing the assessment amount to Rs.76,90,231/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 by its order, dated 12.09.2011. Assailing both these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner advanced two submissions, namely, that the petitioner has regularised the services of 86 out of 116 NMRs in respect of whom the respondents have assessed the provident fund contribution pending the appeal and having regard to this subsequent event respondent No.2 ought to have allowed the appeal and (2) that as the NMRs are entitled to pensionary benefits consequent on their regularisation, the assessment order as confirmed in appeal confers double advantage on them.

The learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the above contentions and submitted that regularisation of NMRs with prospective effect will not have any effect on the liability of the employer to contribute provident fund for the anterior period. He further submitted that it is only from the date of regularisation that the regularised employees will get the pensionary benefits and that the liability of the petitioner being for the anterior period to the period of regularisation, the petitioner cannot escape from the statutory liability. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the posts in which 86 out of 116 NMRs were regularised carry pensionary benefits. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that their services were regularised with retrospective effect.

As an employer, the petitioner has statutory obligation to contribute provident fund in respect of all the employees, who fall within the definition of employee in Section 2(f) of the Act. It is relieved from such liability only from the date on which the provisions of the General Provident Fund Act, 1945 apply to the employees. On the facts of this case, there is no question of the petitioner conferring double benefit on the absorbed NMRs, because admittedly their regularisation is with prospective effect. The petitioner’s liability for provident fund contribution is thus extended till the date of regularisation of NMRs. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that there was discrepancy in the wages and that the appellate Tribunal failed to consider the same properly. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that on the review petition filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 has reduced the petitioner’s liability Rs.98,12,519.20 ps to Rs.76,90,231/-. Therefore, even by the time the petitioner filed the appeal, its grievance stood redressed with the review of the order by respondent No.1 leading to steep reduction of the petitioner’s liability.

The fact that respondent No.1 has reviewed his earlier order and reduced the amount to Rs.76,90,231/- is not in dispute. Hence, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to carry its grievance any further with respect to alleged discrepancies in wages. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated

27.09.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.33357 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.1379 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. 03rd July, 2012 VGB C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J