9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 2009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other employees under notification dated 1st June, 1973 reproduced above does show the same and veracity of the same is not disputed - It is easily discernible that CIDCO would be an authority covered by clause (b) of Section 16 of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 referred to above. Sub-section (3) of Section (1) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 shows that applicability of the Act would be subject to provisions contained in Section 16 and further that it is not the case of the appellant that their case is covered under sub-section of 4 of Section 1 of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. Having regard to aforesaid, it transpires that CIDCO in present matter as the special planning authority would hardly be said to be governed by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. In view of the same, it is not found that the Letters Patent Appeal can be entertained on the grounds and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal therefore, is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the LPA and writ petition, the civil applications do not survive and are disposed of. - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke action and pass orders and levy charge on CIDCO. 6. Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that putting CIDCO under caption 'building and construction' of schedule and levy of charges therefor, is not in accordance with provisions in the statute and that EPF authorities had no competence to levy charge. The authorities had not appreciated factual aspects properly. CIDCO had been working at preliminary level during 1980 to December, 1985. While activity of sweeping and cleaning had been carried out by contractors, its record was not supposed to be maintained by CIDCO. It was supposed to be maintained only by contractors. For an activity 15 years before, to expect its record with CIDCO would not be proper. Moreover, the same would not be logical. The details as were sought by EPF authorities, in the circumstances, could not be provided rather the expectation had not been legitimate. The charges demanded as also method that had been allegedly followed by EPF authorities are incompatible with law. 7. Superceding aforesaid, Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel submits that while CIDCO is a government company, looking at Section 16 of the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (2), require the work of developing and disposing of land in the area of a new town to be done by any such corporation, company or subsidiary company aforesaid, as an agent of the State Government; and thereupon, such corporation or company shall, in relation to such area, be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be the New Town Development Authority for that area. 10. During the submissions of the parties a copy of notification dated 01-06-1973 issued pursuant to the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, had been tendered across. Perusal of said notification dated 01st June, 1973 would show, it has been referred to that the Government of Maharashtra had declared the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) to be, respectively, new town development authority for area comprising new Bombay and special planning authority for Aurangabad notified area. It may not be out of place to refer to that the CIDCO is subsidiary company of State Industrial and Investments Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, a company owned and controlled by the State Government. Under the notification, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the benefit of its whole time paid members and of its officers and other employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules, such pension or provident fund or both as it may deem fit. (2) Where any such pension or provident fund has been constituted, the State Government may declare that the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 shall apply to such fund as if it were a Government Provident Fund 14. Thus, it emerges that CIDCO is new town development authority and special planning authority which has constituted provident fund and is declared to be governed by Provident Funds Act, 1952 for benefits of its members and officers and other employees under notification dated 1st June, 1973 reproduced above does show the same and veracity of the same is not disputed. 15. It would be worthwhile to refer to Section 1 of enactment EPF MP Act reading, thus: Section 1: Short title, extent and application. (1) This Act may be called the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits; (2) If the Central Government is of opinion that having having regard to the financial position of any class of establishments or other circumstances of the case, it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively, that class of establishments from the operation of this Act for such period as may be specified in the notification. 17. It is easily discernible that CIDCO would be an authority covered by clause (b) of Section 16 of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 referred to above. Sub-section (3) of Section (1) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 shows that applicability of the Act would be subject to provisions contained in Section 16 and further that it is not the case of the appellant that their case is covered under sub-section of 4 of Section 1 of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. 18. Having regard to aforesaid, it transpires that CIDCO in present matter as the special planning authority would hardly be said to be governed by the provisions of Employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
