A.M. Sapre, J.
1. In this petition, the question is essentially regarding applicability of the Act (Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) to the Educational Institutions run by the petitioner No. 1 Society. And secondly, if that is applicable then for which period?
2. Similar questions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of M.P, Shikshak Congress and Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and Ors. 1999 (1) SCC 396 : 1999-I-LLJ-476. These questions were answered by their Lordships of Supreme Court vide their decision dated December 1, 1998.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered during pendency
of this writ petition, the Authorities concerned in this case had no occasion to examine the issue in the light of the decision and the guidelines given by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Shikshak Congress and Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner Jabalpur and Ors., dated December 1, 1998. It was, therefore, suggested that the issue should be remanded to the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Indore, with a direction to examine the issue involved in this writ petition in the light of the law explained by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and then pass final orders.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by both the counsel. Accordingly while i set aside all the impugned notices/orders, passed from time to time, I direct the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Indore to examine the matter of the
petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by their Lordships of Supreme Court in M.P. Shikshak Congress and Ors. v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and Ors., (supra) and then pass final orders in respect of the period for which this writ petition was filed and demands were raised. Needless to say that the orders shall be passed by the Commissioner after granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to place their case and make their submissions. The Commissioner would examine the controversy in the light of the aforesaid judgment and then give his final verdict with reasons.
5. Let this exercise be done within a period of four months from the date of this order.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is accordingly finally disposed of.