- (1.) Heard Mr. Suneel Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition impugns two orders, dated 29.09.2017, by which Employer's Code Number has been allotted to the petitioner and dated 29.01.2018, holding that the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act, 1952') apply to the petitioner Corporation. We have perused the order dated 29.01.2018, in particular the observations made in first two paragraphs thereof, which read thus: "Please take reference of your office letter dated 22/11/2017, in this regard you have submitted that your establishment was a subsidiary company of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited but as per certificate of incorporation issued by Registrar of Company, Kanpur that the establishment namely M/s Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow is a newly incorporated establishment. So you are directed to submit documentary evidence in support of contention that M/s Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is a branch/subsidiary of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Further, in your letter dated 25/11/2017 you have submitted that Employees Provident Fund Organisation office has directed that there is no need to comply under EPF & MP Act, 1952, hence you are directed to submit documentary evidence in support of your contention."
(3.) In view of the highlighted portion, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be given an opportunity to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and place documentary evidence on record, as observed in the above paragraphs, and also to satisfy that the petitioner- Corporation stand exempted and/or the Act, 1952 does not apply to the petitioner-establishment. He submits that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may be given directions to decided their case afresh, insofar as application of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act, 1952 is concerned. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, 1952 are not applicable to the petitioner establishment, since they have engaged more than 20 employees, and that the employees working for them are covered by the definition as defined by clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act, 1952.;