In a recent ruling, the High Court of Meghalaya dismissed a provident fund ( PF ) claim petition due to the petitioner’s failure to use the alternative remedy and directed that 25% of the PF should be deposited within 2 months of the judgement.
In this case, the petitioner is a school named St. John’s School Whitehall, which is a registered educational institution in Meghalaya since 1982. It enrolled with the Employees Provident Fund ( EPF ) Organization only in 2000, starting contributions from that year onward.
It was contended by the school that although it had been operational since 1982, it was only mandated to comply with EPF contributions starting in 2000. The school argued that it only employed 20 staff members as of 1996 and therefore was only liable for contributions from that point onward.
The authorities issued demands stating unpaid contributions from 1982 to 2008, which included an interest demand of Rs. 1,28,393 and penal damages of Rs. 3,35,478, both required within 15 days. The petitioners were unable to understand as to how the respondents arrived at the above-mentioned amounts and sought clarifications but received no satisfactory response
Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now
The respondents then issued a certificate under Section 8 of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, issued upon the Recovery Officer to recover the total sum of Rs. 4,63,871 from the school.
The petitioner, who was aggrieved by the above order, has approached the High Court requesting to set aside the impugned order and quash the same.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the ruling by this court, dated 27.01.2012, had directed them to pay only 25% of the damages for the period between 1996 and 1999.
The counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the school has presented misleading information as since March 1892, there were 21 teaching staff and 8 non-teaching staff in all, and the monthly wages of such staff came to Rs. 14,220, and thus the school was liable to deposit the necessary contribution on behalf of such staff as EPF.
It was further contended by the respondent’s counsel that the present mention is not maintainable as there is a specific provision under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which provides for an appeal to the Tribunal.
Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now
The High Court bench acknowledged the contention raised by the respondent EPF that the school should have appealed the Section 14B notice to the Tribunal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act rather than petitioning the High Court under Article 226. The single bench was of the opinion “that remanding the case to the tribunal would be further delay to those who stood to benefit from the contributions.”
The High Court bench comprising Justice W. Diengdoh directed the school to deposit 25% of the demanded amount, totaling Rs. 4,63,871, within two months.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
