JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P-6 and P-9 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as’ the 1952 Act’).
2. Petitioner-college is affiliated with the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. It is also receiving grant-in-aid from the Government to the extent of 95% and the provisions of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 are applicable to the petitioner. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, issued notice to the petitioner Under Section 7-A of the 1952 act and held that a sum of Rs. 4,63,192.35 was to be deposited by the petitioner to fulfil its obligation under the Scheme framed by the Central Government. Petitioner challenged this order in Civil Writ Petition No. 5842 of 1992. Vide order dated 15.10.1992, the High Court directed that the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and the Registrar, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, should transfer the amount of Provident fund deposited by the petitioner to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, and further directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the actual dues payable by the petitioner. This was followed by a show-cause notice dated 30.12.1992 issued by the respondent No. 3. After giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 passed order Annexure P-8 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,58,141.50 within a period of fifteen days. Review application filed by the petitioner on 14.8.1993 has been dismissed by the respondent No. 3 vide order Annexure P-9 on the ground that the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount of the provident fund is without any legal justification.
3. These orders have been challenged on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of provident fund over and above what has been specified in the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993, and if at all the petitioner is required to pay provident fund over and above 10% of the basic pay then the Government should enhance the amount of grant. Reliance has been placed on Annexure P-1 and P-8 in support of the plea that as per the directions given by the Government and the University, the petitioner is required to pay only 10% of the basic pay of the employees as provident fund.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned orders.
5. The issue of applicability of the provisions of the 1952 Act to the privately managed aided educational institutions has been set at rest in view of the order dated 7.1.1988 passed by the Supreme Court while dismissing Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9746-57 of 1982 (Nehru Memorial College and Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Chandigarh and Ors.). Their Lordships have held that the plea regarding non-applicability of the provisions of the 1952 Act to the educational institution is without any substance.
6. We may further observe that the provisions of the 1952 Act constitute a special provision on the subject of provident fund and, therefore, the general provision contained in the 1979 Act cannot be pressed into service to support noncompliance of the provisions of the 1952 Act. Moreover even if we were to assume that there is any conflict between the Act of 1952 and the Act of 1979, the former will prevail being a law enacted by the Parliament as against the law enacted by the State Legislature. ‘Provident Funds’ have been referred to in-Entry 24 of List-Ill to the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, both the Parliament as well as the State Legislature may have power to enact laws on the subject of ‘Provident Funds’ but in the absence of previous sanction of the President for enactment of the 1979 Act, the provisions of the 1952 Act will continue to operate over and above the provision contained in the 1979 Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is not liable to pay the provident fund in accordance with the provisions of the 1952 Act.
7. Other contention of the learned counsel regarding the liability of the State Government to pay the contribution of the teachers and the other employees, which the petitioner is liable to pay under the 1952 Act, cannot be accepted because there is no prayer in the writ petition to issue a mandamus to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for payment of enhanced grant-in-aid. The only prayer which the petitioner has made qua respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that they should accord necessary approval to the petitioner for transferring the actual amount of arrears of the provident fund lying in the individual accounts of its employees. We cannot, therefore, grant relief to the petitioner by directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to enhance the amount of grant-in-aid payable to the petitioner.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the Government for release of the amount equivalent to its liability under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the Government will sympathetically consider and decide the same at the earliest but, in any case, within a period of three months.