18/12/2024
COURT NO.4
SECTION XVI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s)
29603/2024
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 30-07-2024 in MAT No. 2130/2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta]
RAJYA PARSHWA SHIKSHAK SAMANWAY SAMITY & ANR.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PASCHIM BANGA SAMAGRA SHIKSHA MISSION & ORS.
Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.286340/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date:
16-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner (s)
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the teachers and employees of the respondent No. 1 Society. The issue here is the coverage of the Society under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the "EPF Act"). The relevant period here is from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2015.
3. The counsel would argue that the provisions of the EPF Act was held applicable to the Society under Section 7A of the Act and the said legal position despite the contrary position of the Society was upheld. Moreover in the consequential action for implementation of the declaration given on the coverage of the Society under the EPF Act, this Court ordered dismissal of the Society's Special Leave Petition on 02.11.2022 (Annexure P/B).
4. However, through the executive order issued on 14.08.2023, the Central Government held that the Society is eligible for exemption from the provisions of the EPF Act w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2015.
5. When the aggrieved employees challenged the exemption decision, the learned Single Judge on 12.10.2023 set aside the exemption but on subsequent challenge by the Society, the Division Bench by the impugned order had upheld the exemption granted to the Society.
6. The argument of the counsel is that through the executive order, judicial pronouncement of the High Court, as endorsed by this Court, cannot be set at not.
7. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
(NITIN TALREJA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS
(ANU BHALLA) COURT MASTER (NSH)
