M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the petitioners payment of Employees Provident Fund to the petitioners without restricting the same to the period after regularisation. The petitioners have claimed right of Employees Provident Fund under Section 7 (A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the EPF Act') and have based their claims on the earlier judgment of this Court as upheld by the Letters Patent Bench and Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others, 1991 (7) SLR 234.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in this petition are that the petitioners have been working on the post of Guage Reader with effect from various dates ranging from 1.7.1978 to 1984. The dates of their appointments on work charge basis are as under : JUDGEMENT_547_LAWS(P&H)2_2006_1.html The respondent department has implemented the Employees Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. June, 1996 and the deductions of provident fund in respect of the petitioners had commenced from March, 1996 as is evident from the communication circulated by the Chief Engineer of the respondent department on 14.5.1996 (P- 3). The petitioners have, however, claimed that the provisions of the EPF Act have been made effective with regard to the petitioner from 31.10.1980 and they are covered by the expression 'industry' as used by Section 21 of the EPF Act. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). The judgment of the learned Single Judge is stated to have been upheld in LPA No. 995 of 1991 and the appeal of the respondent State was dismissed on 20.9.1991. The respondent State challenged the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Letters Patent Bench by filing SLP No. 18423 of 1991, which has also been dismissed on 18.8.1992. Reference has also been made to various other SLPs bearing No. 16940 of 1994, 19712 of 1995 and 20140 of 1995 which have been dismissed on 26.2.1996 (P-2). It has, thus, been claimed that the matter has attained finality and the respondent State being the employer is under a legal obligation to make contribution towards the employees provident fund with effect from the date the notification has been issued under Section 1 (3) (b) of the EPF Act, as has been done in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). With the aforementioned averments the petitioners had sent a legal notice claiming the right of employers' contribution to the employees provident fund (P-4). However, the demand raised by the petitioners has been rejected on 25.1 1.1999 by the respondents (P-5).
(3.) The stand of the respondents in the written statement as well as the communication sent in reply to the legal notice of the petitioners is that the Investigation Division where the petitioners are employed was attached with the Kandi Canal Circle, Hoshiarpur, w.e.f. June, 1996 and the same falls under World Bank Aided Project. It has further been asserted that the division was covered by the EPF Act w.e.f. 1.4.1996 whereas the other divisions of Kandi Canal Circle, Hoshiarpur were covered w.e.f. 31.10.1980. Therefore, deductions have been made only w.e.f. June, 1996. The earlier judgment in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) is sought to be distinguished by stating that prior to June, 1996 the Investigation Division was attached with the Director, Planning and Design Studies, Chandigarh, which did not fall within the provisions of the EPF Act and, therefore, the EPF Scheme could not be implemented before June, 1996.;