A.R.Lakshmanan, J. - (1.) IN the present matter, the appellant is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) and the respondents are Sanathan Dharam Girls Secondary School, a Non- Governmental Educational INstitution and the State of Rajasthan among others. Brief facts in the matter are as follows: The Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act (in short 'the EPF Act') came into force in 1952. IN 1982, vide Gazette notification by the Government, Educational INstitutions were added in the Schedule of the Act under section 1 (3). The schedule reads thus: "(i) any University; (ii) any college whether or not affiliated to a University (iii) any school, whether or not recognized or Aided by the Central or State Government (iv) any scientific institution (v) any institution in which research in respect of any matter is carried on. (vi) any other institution in which the activity of imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on."
(2.) FURTHER in 1988, clause (b) of section 16(1) of the EPF Act, 1952 was substituted by new clauses (b) (c) and (d). The amended provisions read as under: "16 (1) (b): to any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age person in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits;(c) to any other establishment set up under any Central Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age person in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits; (d) to any other establishment newly set up until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment is has been set up" The State Government had framed rules known as 'The Rules for payment of Grant-in-Aid to non-governmental educational, cultural and physical educational institutions in Rajasthan, 1963'.Later in 1989 the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly passed "The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989" which came into force from 01.01.1993.On 05.08.1997, the State Government (Finance Department) issued an order to implement the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952 on Non-Governmental aided educational institutions employing 20 or more persons. On 24.01.1998, the State Government (Educational Department) passed an order by which it transferred the existing Provident Fund amount from the State treasury to the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Later on 24.08.1998, the State Government (Finance Department) passed an order about transfer of Provident Fund amount from State treasury to the Provident Fund Commissioner. Various Educational Institutions filed 21 writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan, challenging the orders and circulars of the State Government issued on 05.08.1997, 24.01.1998 and 24.08.1998. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also filed 2 writ petitions in the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and allowed the 21 writ petitions filed by different Educational Institutions by an order dated 16.01.2001 stating that the state Act would override the provisions of EPF Act, 1952 and also observed that the educational institutions before him would fall under the exception under the amended section 16 (1) (b) of the EPF Act. Against this order of the learned Single Judge, the RPFC went on appeal before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. However, the Division Bench also observed that the EPF Act will not apply to the Educational Institutions before the Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the RPFC. Further on 23.02.2003, the respondent, Educational Institution filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the order of the State Government directing the Non-Governmental aided Educational Institution employing 20 or more persons to deposit its contribution with the RPFC. The High Court disposed off the matter in favour of the Educational Institution in line with the decision in the matter of Balbari Vidya Mandir Churu v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/2000). Against this decision of the High Court, the RPFC went on appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court which in turn by an order dated 16.09.2002, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by this order of the High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant, RPFC has approached this Court. As we understand, the issue before this court is: Whether the provisions of EPF Act, 1952 are applicable to the Non- Governmental Educational Institutions or not in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the EPF Act. And whether the respondents Institutions will fall under the exceptions stated in section 16(1) (b) of the EPF Act. We heard Mr. H.L. Aggarwala, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain and Manish Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the interveners. We have also perused all the documents filed before us. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the RPFC stated that, the Central Act that is the EPF Act came into force in 1952, the same was made applicable to all Educational Institutions from 06.03.1982 and there were no State Acts or rules in place which dealt with the matters relating to Provident Fund in Educational Institutions. Later in 1989 the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly passed "The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 which came into force from 01.01.1993.Therefore, during the period from 06.03.1982 to 31.12.1992, the Central Act, that is the EPF Act, 1952 will be applicable on all Educational Institutions employing more than 20 employees. To establish this, the learned counsel invited our attention to M.P. Shikshak Congress and Ors. Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and Ors (1999 (1) SCC 396), case, where this Court observed that: "However, after the application of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to education institutions, in 1983 new Rules were framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Act 20 of 1978. These are referred to as the State Rules of 1983. Under the State Rules of 1983, for the first time a scheme was set out for Contributory Provident Fund covering the teachers and employees of aided schools. The State Government, however, was conscious of the fact that the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, by Rule 10(6) of the State Rules of 1983, it was provided that the scheme as set out in State Rules of 1983 would not apply where the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 apply. Clearly, therefore, far from there being any conflict between the State and the Central Legislation, the State Legislation by Rules framed in 1983 has excluded from the operation of the State scheme as framed under the 1983 Rules, those employees to whom the Central Act applies.16. In this view of the matter, there can be no doubt that for the period 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1988 the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was applicable to such teachers and employees of the aided schools in the State of Madhya Pradesh who are covered by the provisions of the scheme framed there under. The orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, therefore, in so far as the orders cover the period 1st August, 1982 to 1st August, 1988 are valid".
(3.) FURTHER the learned senior counsel submitted that, the Educational Establishment covered or coverable under EPF Act, 1952 during the period from 06.03.1982 to 31.12.1992 will remain covered or coverable under Central Act of 1952 itself even after the coming into force of the State Act of 1989 or the State Rules of 1993, as RPFC has already settled the PF Accounts of their employees on retirement and has settled their pension cases, family pension cases, children and parents pension cases and monthly pension cases and paying monthly pension/family pension regularly for number of years. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court have not correctly appreciated and interpreted Section 16 (1) (b) of the EPF Act, 1952 and have wrongly recorded that all Educational Institutions are under the control of the State Government as they are recognized by the State Act of 1989. He pointed out that these Educational Institutions were running and are managed by registered societies and none of them are owned or managed by the State Government. Merely on the basis of recognition under the State Act of 1989 it could not have been held that these Educational Institutions are under the control of the State Government as required under section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act, 1952. FURTHER, the counsel stated that, only the Educational Institutions whose management has been taken over by the State Government under section 10 of the State Act, 1989 shall fall within the exception under section 16 (1) (b) of the State Act of 1989. Section 10 reads as follows: "10. Powers of the State Government to take over management-(1) notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whenever it appears to the State Government that the managing committee of any recognized institution has neglected to perform any of the duties assigned to it by or under this Act or the rules made there under or has failed to manage the institution properly and that it has become necessary in the public interest to take over the management of such institution, it may after giving to such managing committee a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, take over such management and appoint an administrator to exercise control over the assets of the Institution and to run the institution for such period as the State Government may from time to time fix. (2) Where, before the expiry of the period fixed under sub-section (1) the State Government is of opinion that it is not necessary to continue the management of the institution by an administrator, such management shall be resorted to the managing committee". While concluding his submissions, the learned senior counsel stated that the High Court did not take into consideration that the Central Act is more beneficial for the employees than the State Act as there is compulsory pension scheme, called "The Employees Pension Scheme, 1995" under the Central Act. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, respondent herein submitted that, in the year 1989 the Government of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. The Act came into force on 01.01.1993. The State Government after the enactment of the said Act has clearly occupied the field concerning the deposit of PF of the employees of Non-Government Institutions and it clearly overrides the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952. He submitted that, it is relevant to mention that the contribution to the PF pertains to Entry 24 of List III of the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, as far as post 1993 period is concerned, the RPFC do not have any subsisting legal right as that Act of 1989 of Rajasthan shall prevail and to this extent the issuance of orders dated 05.08.1997, 28.01.1998 and 24.08.1998 by the Government of Rajasthan amounted to incorrect application of law and the AG appearing for the state of Rajasthan clearly conceded to the same before the High Court of Rajasthan. Thus it is clear that the Educational Institutions are outside the purview of the EPF Act. Besides, the Central Act itself contemplates non- application of the Central Act in certain situations especially enumerated under section 16 of the Act of 1952. Section 16 (1) (b) clearly mentions that the establishments which are under the control of state government will not fall within the purview of the Central Act, 1952. Moreover, there is a scheme framed for contributory PF under the chapter VIII of the Rules of 1993.In conclusion it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent State that in the present fact scenario, the provisions of section 16(1) (b) of the Central Act, 1952 are attracted and therefore, the appellant cannot claim any right over the contributory provident fund of the employees of the Educational Institutions covered by the Act of 1989.;