The Managing Committee of the G.D. Memorial Education Society and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner-Institution has filed this writ petition for quashing of orders dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure P-3), 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). The grievance raised in the petition is that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions of the Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") have been wrongly made applicable to the petitioner-Institution. As per the counsel, the petitioner-Institution has never employed more than 20 employees and this fact has not been rightly appreciated by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and so also the Appellate Authority.

I have perused the impugned orders. This factual issue raised in regard to the number of people employed by the petitioner-Institution has been considered by the authorities under the Act and so also the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-Institution had submitted a list of 20 employees, duly signed by the employer, during the visit of Squad on 6.3.2003. Statements were recorded by the Leader of the Squad. Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Pushpa had deposed that they did not report to be home servants. It was also observed that without services of Chowkidar, Sweeper and Aya, it was not possible to run the school. On the basis of this material, the authorities came to form an opinion that the establishment had fabricated the record and employer was trying to mislead the department. The reference is made by the counsel to the report given by DEO, which is placed on record as Annexure P-4. Report (Annexure P-4) is on the basis of record, whereas the one recorded by the Squad was on the basis of statements recorded. The authorities came to form an opinion that the petitioner-Institution could not establish the fact that they were not employing more than 20 people to come out of the rigors of the Act. It is basically on the basis of factual controversy that the view has been formulated. There would hardly be any scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction to re-appreciate the facts. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.