AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14371 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the petition, has dismissed the petition. We have heard Ms. Hingorani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Clerk, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 upon advance copy.
It was contended that the Provident Fund contribution was made and, therefore, the question of exemption may not arise. However, Mr. Clerk, learned Counsel has produced copy of the Notification dated 7.6.2005, whereby the exemption has been extended to respondent No. 3 up to 31.3.2010, whereas the services of the appellants have come to an end in the year 2001.
As such, if exemption was granted under the Employees'' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, the question of applicability of P.F. Scheme may not arise. However, it was submitted that the amount towards provident fund was deducted, but the said amount has not been refunded.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant states that the said amount of Rs. 9,619/- has already been refunded, but still there is a balance of Rs. 1,251/-, which is yet to be refunded by the P.F. Authority.
Mr. Clerk for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent has already requested the P.F. Authority to refund the said amount to the appellants, however, without prejudice to the contentions that the Act would not be applicable, respondent No. 3 shall make the payment of Rs. 1,251/- with the interest to the appellants within a period of 15 days from today. However, he submitted that the respondent No. 3 should be able to get the said amount from the P.F. Authority directly, since thereafter, the appellants - original petitioners would not be required to be refunded the said amount.
We record the declaration and direct the parties to abide by the declaration. However, it is observed that the direction given in the present matter would not be treated as a precedent, because the Act is not otherwise applicable and, therefore, the passing of the present order would not mean that the Act is applicable. It is only by way of agreed arrangement the aforesaid declaration has been made.
In any case, when the Act is not applicable, subject to the aforesaid observation, no case would arise for interference to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.