- (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the application of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The appellant-institution is run by Baptist Union, North India, a registered Society under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. The said Society runs two schools at 17, Darya Gunj, Delhi, namely. Francis Girls Higher Secondary School which was established in 1916 and the appellant-School which runs nursery classes. The appellant-School was started in the year 1971. The claim of the appellant-School is that Francis Girls Higher Secondary School and the appellant-School, Noor Niwas Nursery Public School, are two different institutions having separate and independent accounts and are managed by two different Managing Committees. The appellant has four employees, namely, 1 Head Mistress, 1 Teacher, 1 Peon and 1 Aaya and it being a separate establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is contended that Francis Girls Higher Secondary School and the appellant-School cannot be treated as one establishment for the purpose of the Act.
(2.) The respondents' contention is that an Inspector of the Department visited Francis Girls Higher Secondary School when Mrs. P. Wadhavan, the Head Clerk in Francis Girls Higher Secondary School gave particulars not only in regard to Francis Girls Higher Secondary School but also in regard to the appellant-School. The said Inspector was examined as a witness before the Provident Fund Commissioner. He was thoroughly cross-examined suggesting that the letter seeking for a common number for depositing the contribution to the provident fund was obtained under duress. But while denying the same he clearly stated that this information had been furnished by Mrs. P. Wadhavan on 21-4-1982 voluntarily.
(3.) The Provident Fund Commissioner on this material held that the two institutions constitute one and the same establishment and, therefore, is covered by the Act. This order of the Provident Fund Commissioner was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. Hence this appeal.;