The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1 51 c pc praying that in the circumstances stated affidavit fired in support of the peiition, it'e Higt court may be preased to restrain the respondent / defendant from initiation & attachmeni ;i;;;J; & immovable properties of the petitionerteraintin coiporation, or any other coercive aclion for the purpose of recovery / or rearization or any oueJ pJii"iii"g th:, Chinmaya Vidyataya & Junior Coilege, Lvotni"ag;i namagundam. Counsel for the Appellant Ms. KUDAYASRI Sri G. Vidya Sagar, Sr Counsel for Counsel for the Respondent : G VENKATESHVARLU(SC FOR EPFO) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI J[,STICE ABHINAND KUMT R SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE TIRUMALA DI VI EADA

4.S.NO.623 0F 2009 WDGEMENT i fer the Hon'bb Sn Justice Abhulr.nd Ku,nar sha,rt,/ This Appeal Suit is filed against the .1r. dgment and decree, dated 30.09.2009 passed in O.S.No.24 ,t 2OO7 by the learned District Judge, Karimnagar

2. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Slr Lior Counsel representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counst:i rppearing for the appellant and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, l<::r necl counsel appearing for the respondent

3. karned Senior Counsel for the rr: cellant had contended that the appellant has filecl O.S.Nr .'24 of 2OO7, seeking declaration and perpetual injunction r r strzrining the respondent-Organisation from initiatine attachment proceedings against the movable and immovertrlr properties of the appellant-Corporation for the purpose of r: :ovt:ry of any dues pertaining to Chinmaya Vidyalaya & .Jr- nior College, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, which is beine rur'r in the premises of the appellant. Learned Senior lounsel had l I I t I i I ! i \ i I I 2 further contended that the respondent-Organisation has issued proceedings, dated 17.O3.2OO4, directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the penal damages and interest towards EPF dues in respect ol Chinmaya Vidhyalaya and it was wrongly assumed that the employees of the said educational institution were employees of the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that since there exists no master-servant relationship between the appellant and employees oI Chinmaya Vidyalaya, the proceedings issued by the respondent against the appellant for recovery of dues from the appellant on behalf of the employees of Chinmaya Vidvalaya are not maintainable' However, the trial Court has dismissed the suit, without appreciating any ol the contentions raised by the appellant'

4. Learned Senior Counsel tbr the appellant had further contended that the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourablc Supreme Court in S'C'Chandra and others u. Sto:te of Jharkhand and otherst, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that if educational institutions are run in the premises of a Corporation, ..the ' 2oo7 (E) scc 279 3 employees of educational institutions do not become employees of that Corporation and the respor.r ;ibility to pay Provident Fund dues lies with the educatior al institution itself and not with the organization which has cnly provided space for running the school and this fact r,r.a r not properly appreciated by the trial Court and also by tir : respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in re appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree, datt:, I 3O.09.2009 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2OOZ and further. restrain the respondent from initiating any action against l-re appellant for recovery of dues relating to the employees ol Chinmaya Vidyalaya. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appc rring for the respondent had contended that the procer: hngs, dated 17.O3.2OO4 was merely a notice requiring tht, appellant to deposit the amount adjudicated by the autho ities, r,,,ithin three (3) days, failing which, appropriare proceedings, including attachment of properties, would bc nitiated. No coercive steps have been taken against the appc lant and the appellant has approached the Civil Court in thc trrm of filing thb. said suit and the trial Court has rightly rl smissed the 4 suit. l,earned counsel had further contended that the trial Court has observed that against the order passed by the respondent, the appellant ought to have availed the alternative remedy by way of hling an appeal under Section 7(I) of the Emptoyees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. However, instead of availing the said remedy, the appellant has directly approached the Civil Court. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the respondent had initiated proceedings directing the appellant to pay delayed interest and damages towards EPF dues related to employees of the Chinmaya Vid.yalaya. However, before initiating any action against the appcllant, the respondent is directed to issue proper Show Cause Notice. The appellant- Corporation is directed to submit its explanation, including the judgment relied upon by it. On such explanation being submitted by the appellant-Corporation' the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance w'ith law. / 5

7. With these observations/directions, th: Appeal disposed of. 1S As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pe nding, if ary, shall stand closed. pI OHO. ISMAIL REGISTRAT ,TTRUE COPY'I $$r,o* oFFtcER To, 1 The District Judge, Karimnagar. (with Records, if any) 2. One CC to SRl. K UDAYA SRI Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI G VENKATESHVARLU(SC FOR EPFC) Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies $> i i I l i HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 JUDGMENT AS.No.623 of 2009 \iu, \..?\ ?025 ,c) {- i: 12 iii, \-3 ^\-*. \.-.- r [-] I ._ra' _\t- --. : :.=- 6O DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL v J\ \\\ i i