- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In the instant writ petition, a challenge has been laid by the petitioner, Vivekanand Memorial Public School, Raisinghnagar (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Institution') to the impugned order (Annex. 15) dated 19.11.1998 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'PF Tribunal') holding the petitioner Institution is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act of 1952) and scheme framed thereunder. Therefore, the appeal against the order passed under Section 7A of Act of 1952 by the competent authority on 22.06.1998 was rejected by the learned PF Tribunal.
(3.) Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy that recognized private educational institutions covered by the State control or aided under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, is exempted from the provisions of the PF Act of 1952 and this controversy has been settled by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment annexed with the writ petition in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Digamber Jain Secondary, 2002 3 WLC(Raj) 74 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School & Ors. (Appeal (Civil) No. 7016/2004 decided on 30.10.2006). He has also submitted that about number of employees recorded by the Inspector during the survey, there were interpolations made by the said authority and he was prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and vide judgment/order dated 24.12.2000 in Criminal Case No. 7/95 (16/98)- Union of India Vs. M.S. Maurya, and the said person has been convicted for the offences of corruption and based on his report, the coverage of the petitioner Institution could not be upheld by the learned PF Tribunal as has been done in the impugned order (Annex. 15) dated 19.11.1998.;