BALASAHEB DEMPURIKAR VIDHYA MANDIR, UMARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: STATE)
Balasaheb Dempurikar Vidhya Mandir, Umari
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - -
(1.) All these writ petitions have been taken up together in view of the order passed by this Court on 27/01/1998, keeping in view that a common point of law has been raised by all these petitioners in the light of Section 16(1)(c) of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act, 1952. For the sake of clarity, the order dated 27/01/1998 reads as under:
"Leave to amend.
In all these petitions a common point of lalw has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in as much as in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said act is not applicable to the employees of private schools as they are entitled for pension etc. Under the M.E.P.S.Act, 1977 and the Rules thereunder.
Notice before admission returnable on 29/01/1998.
Mr. Chillarge, learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent No.1.
The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad, is directed to depute an Officer from his office to remain present before this Court on 29.1.1998 to clarify if the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are supported by the State Government or otherwise.
Mr. R.G.Deo, learned counsel waives service for respondent No.2. Mr.Deshpande, undertakes to serve copies on Mr.Deo, learned counsel today itself."
(2.) After hearing all the sides and while admitting these petitions by order dated 29/01/1998, this Court arrived at a primafacie conclusion that all such schools which were covered u/s 16 of the E.P.F. Act. By the combined reading of Rules 19 and 20 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 with paragraph No.16 of clause 3.2 of the Secondary School Code, such schools were exempted from the applicability of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act. The order dated 29/01/1998 reads as under :
"Heard Shri C.R.Deshpande, counsel for petitioner, Shri R.C.Deo, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 in Writ Petition Nos.379/98, 380/98, 381/98, 389/98 and 390/98 and Shri Alok Sharma, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 in Writ Petition Nos.390/98, 401/98 and 402/98 and Shri.S.V.Chillarge, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
On a combined reading of Rules 19 and 20 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and paragraph 16 of Clause 3.2 of the Secondary School Code, it is primafacie evident that the provisions of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not applicable to the employees working in recognised private schools whether aided or unaided.
Rule made returnable on 24th February 1998. In the meanwhile, ad interim stay in terms of prayer clauses (D) and (E).
Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried our within one week from today.
Respondent No.1 to file affidavit within two weeks from today."
(3.) When these matters were heard by this Court on 17/06/1998, it was noted that the issue as to whether the school is an aided school or not would be a decisive factor.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.