WRIT PET IT ION No. 19571 of 2000 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Petitioner questions the order of the 1st respondent, dated 07-02-2000. The 2nd respondent college was set up in the year 1984 and the same was closed in the year 1985, as the State Government revoked permission in July, 1985. The college was again started from September, 1987, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner herein passed the order, dated 05-04-1999, with regard to the liability of the 2nd respondent for contribution of the funds from 01-12-1989 to 31-12-1990 granting two years infancy period under Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”), as the academic years 1985-86 and 1986-87 remained non- functional and the infancy period will be commenced from December, 1987. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by the impugned order, dated 07-02-2000, holding that the 2nd respondent is entitled for infancy benefit from the date of second start of the educational institution i.e., from 01-01-1991.

When the college has been started for the academic year 1984-85, as per Section 16(1)(d) of the Act, three years infancy period has to be given from 01-06-1984 to 01-06-1987. Admittedly, the College was not started by 01-06-1987 and it started with effect from September 1987 alone. If that be so, the appellate authority in the impugned order held that closure of the college was not on the temporary basis from July 1985 to end of September, 1987, but due to cancellation of the permission, the college was permanently closed, but only, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the college has been re-started from September, 1987. Accordingly, the appellate court held that infancy period has to be taken from the 2 nd fresh start of the college alone but not from the earlier period when permission itself was permanently revoked and the college was kept closed. I am of the opinion that when the petitioner himself has extended the infancy period from three years to five years, it cannot be said that the College was functioning and that the college was liable to contribute the Provident Fund amount.