IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 568 of 2006()
1. JOHN DANIEL, DIRECTOR OF ST.JOHN'S
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
... Respondent
2. THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND
3. GRACE KUTTY, D/O. LATE KOSHY MATHUNNI,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & P.BHAVADASAN, J.
===========================
W.A.No.568 of 2006 - B
===============================
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Koshy, Ag.CJ.
Action was taken to recover amounts from the appellant’s
establishment under the Provident Fund Act with effect from
31.5.1988. Appellant is a registered society under the
Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies
Act, 1955. It was running three schools in the same premises.
One is a residential school called St.John’s Residential School
with CBSE syllabus. The other is St.John’s High School with KER
syllabus. The third school is under ICSC syllabus. Steps were
taken to combine the schools as one establishemnt under the
Employees Provident Fund Act. Even though the matter was
contended up to the Tribunal level, their contention was not
accepted. Three schools were clubbed and contributions were
demanded. Counsel for the appellant contends that all the three
schools have got different Headmasters. Administration of the
schools is done by Headmasters and not by the society and three
W.A.No.568 of 2006 – B
2
schools have different accounts and different syllabuses. Rules to
be obeyed by the schools are also different. On the contrary,
contention of the respondent is that the management was the
same even though the accounts are separately maintained.
Accounts were also found combined and its managed from the
same office. Financial control also rests with the management.
Even though three separate syllabuses were there, facility like
school bus, boarding, grounds etc. are common. Taking these
aspects, there is functional integrality with these three schools.
Common non-teaching staff are also employed. They were
unaided institutions. The emblem, uniform etc. are also
common. Considering all these facts, Tribunal as well as the
learned Single Judge found that there is functional integrality and
establishment is liable to be covered under the Employees
Provident Fund Act. But learned Single Judge directed to deposit
contribution only from February, 1991 for valid reasons. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that now even as separate
establishment each school is liable to be covered as all these
three schools employees may not have 20 staff members. Staff
W.A.No.568 of 2006 – B
3
strength of each school as on February, 1991 is also not
produced by the appellant. In these circumstances, we see no
ground to interfere in the finding of fact entered by the
authorities as confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we
dismiss the appeal.
J.B.KOSHY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-