AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
This writ petition is filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner questioning the order of the Employees'' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No. 391(6)/2006 dated 04.02.2010 produced at Annexure ''F''. The appellate authority, by the impugned order has observed that, the employer was granted an infancy u/s 16(1)(d) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). As such, from 1996 to 1999, the Provident Fund Organization was not entitled to recover the contribution. The said order has been called in question by the Provident Fund Organization in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Section 16(1)(d) of the Act was omitted by Act No. 10 of 1998 with effect from 22.09.1997. As such, from the date of omission, the respondent - Industry is covered by the provisions of the Act and accordingly, from 22.09.1997, the provident fund contribution is insisted.
No doubt, Section 16(1)(d) of the Act was omitted with effect from 22.09.1997. However, in respect of industries or Companies, which were governed under the infancy for a period of three years prior to coming into force of the Act No. 10 of 1998 omitting Section 16(1)(d) of the Act, the benefit is extended for a period of three years as they were initially conferred with the said benefit. On interpretation of the said provision, the Apex Court in a judgement reported in Sangam Spinners Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, in the matter of SANGAM SPINNERS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, I., has held that, such employer is entitled to protection for a period of three years from the date of its establishment irrespective of repeal of the provisions for such protection. In view of the said decision of the Apex Court, it is no more res integra that the employer, who has been governed by infancy u/s 16(1)(d) of the Act before the omission of the same, is entitled for protection for three years and as such, there is no error in the order passed by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.