{"id":13214,"date":"2009-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-29T00:07:55","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T18:37:55","slug":"rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 38287 of 2002(G)\n\n\n1. RAJESH KRISHNAN, SECRETARY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :03\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n                 ------------------------------------\n                      O.P.No.38287 OF 2002\n               ----------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is a Co-operative Society engaged in the<\/p>\n
business of running a hospital.      They are aggrieved by Ext.P9<\/p>\n
order   of    the    respondent    –   Assistant     Provident Fund<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Kottayam, by which it was held that the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s hospital is liable to be covered under the Employees<\/p>\n
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the<\/p>\n
Scheme framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, being a<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society employing less than 50 employees, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is eligible for exemption from the provisions of the Act,<\/p>\n
by virtue of Section 16(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Funds<\/p>\n
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, by which Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
employing less than 50 employees are exempted from the<\/p>\n
purview of the Act.       The petitioner’s contention is that Ext.P9<\/p>\n
order has been passed considering the trainees engaged by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in their establishment also as employees, who do not<\/p>\n
come within the definition of ’employee’ under Section 2(f) of the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
Act, without counting whom, the number of employees<\/p>\n
employed by the petitioner in their hospital is below 50,<\/p>\n
consequent to which the exemption provision applies to the<\/p>\n
petitioner.    The petitioner would also contend that for this<\/p>\n
purpose, Ext.P3 scheme framed by the petitioner as per which<\/p>\n
the trainees are engaged must be construed as a standing<\/p>\n
order referred to in the definition of `employee’ in Section 2 (f)<\/p>\n
of the Act, in which case, the trainees are liable to be excluded<\/p>\n
for the purpose of calculating the number of employees<\/p>\n
employed in the petitioner’s establishment, direct result of<\/p>\n
which is that the petitioner is employing less than 50<\/p>\n
employees and therefore is eligible for exemption under<\/p>\n
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.       The petitioner relies on the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Madras High Court in Sri. Rama Vilas<\/p>\n
Service Ltd., V. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner<\/p>\n
[2001 LLJ 709], wherein, according to the petitioner, an<\/p>\n
identical training scheme has been relied upon for the purpose<\/p>\n
of holding that trainees employed as per that training scheme<\/p>\n
is excluded from the purview of the definition of ’employee’.<\/p>\n
The contention of the petitioner is that since the two schemes<\/p>\n
are in parimateria, the trainees engaged by the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Ext.P3 scheme are also liable to be excluded for the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
purpose calculating the number of                  employees of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s   establishment,        while   considering      claim for<\/p>\n
exemption under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      2.    This is opposed by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Provident Fund Organisation.         According to them, Ext.P3 does<\/p>\n
not constitute standing orders as referred to in the definition<\/p>\n
of `employee’ under the Act and without standing orders<\/p>\n
applicable to the employees of the petitioner’s establishment,<\/p>\n
which permits engagement of apprentices, the trainees also<\/p>\n
would come within the definition of ’employee’. Although they<\/p>\n
have not taken such a contention in the proceedings resulting<\/p>\n
in Ext.P9, they would now raise a contention that for the<\/p>\n
purpose of becoming eligible for exemption under Section 16<\/p>\n
(1) (a), it is not sufficient that the petitioner is employing less<\/p>\n
than 50 persons, but the other condition referred to therein<\/p>\n
that the establishment is working without the aid of power also<\/p>\n
should be satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      4.    Section 16(1)(a) reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “16.    Act   not  to    apply  to  certain
\n            establishments.- [(1) This Act shall not apply-\n<\/p>\n
                  (a)   to any establishment registered under
\n            the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912(2 of 1912), or
\n            under any other law for the time being in force in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
            any  State   relating  to   co-operative  Societies,
\n            employing less than fifty persons and working
\n            without the aid of power; or….”\n<\/p>\n
The term `employee’ is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act thus:-<\/p>\n
            ” `employee’ means any person who is employed for
\n            wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or
\n            in connection with the work of and establishment,
\n            and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from
\n            the employer, and includes any person,-<\/p>\n
            (i)   employed by or through a contractor in or in
\n            connection with the work of the establishment;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)  engaged as an apprentice, not being an
\n            apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961
\n            (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the
\n            establishment;’<\/p>\n
Going by the said definition, for excluding an apprentice from<\/p>\n
the purview of ’employee’, that apprentice should have been<\/p>\n
engaged under the Apprentices Act 1961 or under the standing<\/p>\n
orders of the establishment.        The petitioner has no case<\/p>\n
that the apprentices in question were engaged under the<\/p>\n
Apprentices Act.     Therefore, the question which has to be<\/p>\n
considered is whether the apprentices, whom the petitioner<\/p>\n
claims to have engaged are engaged under the standing orders<\/p>\n
of the establishment. No standing orders other than Ext.P3,<\/p>\n
which the petitioner claims to be the standing orders have<\/p>\n
been produced before me. The petitioner also contends that<\/p>\n
even if Ext.P3 cannot be construed as standing orders, the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
bye-laws of the society can be construed as the standing<\/p>\n
orders permitting engagement of trainees, in view of Clause 2<\/p>\n
(e) of the bye-laws, which is quoted in the original petition,<\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “To train nurses, compounders, technicians, opticians,
\n        physiotherapists, etc. and to conduct institutions to
\n        impart the required training”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to the petitioner,         since the object clause of the<\/p>\n
bye-laws of the Society provides for training of nurses,<\/p>\n
compounders, technicians, opticians, physiotherapists etc. that<\/p>\n
should be construed as standing orders permitting engagement<\/p>\n
of trainees.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     I am unable to agree.        It cannot be disputed by<\/p>\n
anybody that the term `standing orders’ has a definite<\/p>\n
connotation in industrial law.         The Industrial Employment<\/p>\n
(Standing Orders) Act gives an indication as to what a standing<\/p>\n
order should contain. Section 2(g) of that act defines ‘standing<\/p>\n
orders’ to mean rules relating to matters set out in the<\/p>\n
schedule. The schedule reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “Matters to be provided in standing orders
\n       under this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              1.    Classification of workmen eg. whether
\n       permanent, temporary, apprentices, probationers or
\n       badlis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2.    Manner of intimating to workmen periods<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
       and hours of work, holidays, pay days and wage rates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3.   Shift working.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              4.   Attendance and late coming.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5.   Conditions of procedure in applying for
\n       and authority which may grant leave and holidays.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              6.   Requirements     to  enter   premises  by
\n       certain gates and liability to search.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              7.   Closing and re-opening of sections of the
\n       industrial establishment and temporary stoppages of
\n       work and the rights and liabilities of the employer
\n       and workmen arising therefrom.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              8.   Termination of employment and the
\n       notice thereof to be given by employer and workmen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              9.   Suspension or dismissal for misconduct
\n       and acts and omissions which constitutes misconduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              10.  Means of redress for workmen against
\n       unfair treatment or wrongful exactions by the
\n       employer or his agents or servants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              10A. Additional matters to be provided in
\n       standing orders relating to industrial establishment
\n       in coal mines-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (1)   Medical aid in case of accident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (2)   Railway travel facilities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (3)   Method of filling vacancies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (4)   Transfers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (5)   Liability of manager of the
\n                          establishment or mine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (6)   Service certificate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (7)   Exhibitions and supply of standing
\n                         orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              11.  Any    other    matter    which  may   be\n       prescribed\".\n\n<\/pre>\n
Model standing orders have also been prescribed in the Rules<\/p>\n
framed under the Act.        Standing orders which provides for<\/p>\n
such matters are what is referred to in the definition of<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
’employee’ in Section 2(f) of the Act.    Such standing order<\/p>\n
should    specifically contain    a provision,   whereby     the<\/p>\n
establishment can engage an apprentice in that establishment,<\/p>\n
and the apprentice so engaged only would be taken out of the<\/p>\n
purview of the definition of ’employee’.    The petitioner has<\/p>\n
not been able to produce before me or refer to any such<\/p>\n
standing orders as contemplated in the definition.   The object<\/p>\n
clause of the bye-laws referred to in the original petition can<\/p>\n
by no stretch of imagination be termed as standing orders. It<\/p>\n
only lays down the objects of the society for which the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s Society can engage themselves in, as required<\/p>\n
under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. That does not<\/p>\n
constitute standing orders at all.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      6.    Of course, the petitioner has a contention that<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 can be construed as standing orders, which also I<\/p>\n
cannot agree. Ext.P3 is only a scheme for training persons in<\/p>\n
the Nursing, Laboratory and X-ray departments of the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s hospital.  It does not provide for the general<\/p>\n
conditions of service of the employees which standing orders<\/p>\n
should necessarily contain. That deals exclusively with trainees<\/p>\n
only. Ext.P3 can be pressed into service only if there are<\/p>\n
standing orders for the establishment which provides for<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
engaging apprentices.        That being so persons engaged as<\/p>\n
trainees as per Ext.P3 scheme cannot be excluded from the<\/p>\n
purview of ’employee’. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination<\/p>\n
can Ext.P3 also be termed as a standing order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.    The result of the above discussion is that there are<\/p>\n
no standing orders in the petitioner’s establishment as referred<\/p>\n
to in the definition of employee in Section 2(f) of the Act,<\/p>\n
which permits the petitioner to engage apprentices in their<\/p>\n
establishment. Without such standing orders, the apprentices,<\/p>\n
even if engaged by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 scheme,<\/p>\n
cannot be excluded from the purview of the definition of<\/p>\n
’employee’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. Of course, the<\/p>\n
petitioner would rely on the decision of the Madras High Court<\/p>\n
in  Sri. Rama Vilas Service Ltd’s case (supra), in which,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, such a scheme was considered as<\/p>\n
standing orders.       A reading of the said judgment would,<\/p>\n
without any doubt, show that the contention of the petitioner<\/p>\n
is wrong. The following sentences in paragraph 5 of the said<\/p>\n
judgment would conclusively prove the same:<\/p>\n
              “5.   xxxx        xxxx          xxxx        xxxx
\n                    The petitioner-company is having its goods
\n        transport services and also workshop.      Apart from the
\n        permanent employees, the petitioner has been engaging
\n        trainees for the purpose of training in accordance with the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
        Training Scheme, the Rules and Regulations as well as the
\n        Standing Orders.           The trainees are classified as “staff
\n        trainees”, who are trained in the administrative side of the
\n        office, “technical trainees” trained in the workshop,
\n        “workshop trainees” and “security trainees”.<\/p>\n
                                                  (underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
Those sentences would show that in the establishment referred<\/p>\n
to in that judgment, there were standing orders as well as a<\/p>\n
training scheme.             The types of employees permitted to be<\/p>\n
engaged by the establishment by the standing orders are also<\/p>\n
mentioned in the judgment. This is further highlighted from the<\/p>\n
following sentences in the same judgment.<\/p>\n
             “5……………..The petitioner herein, replied to the same
\n      by their letter dated October 3, 1988, stating that in terms
\n      of the provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to the
\n      petitioner-company they have classified the trainees as
\n      learners, who may be paid or unpaid during the period of such
\n      training and it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioner
\n      to provide an apprentice with work, in the company after
\n      his training period”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      (underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
Therefore, in that judgment also, the trainees, who were<\/p>\n
trained in accordance with the Scheme framed by the<\/p>\n
establishment, were also engaged pursuant to provisions<\/p>\n
available in the standing orders of the establishment.                 Here it<\/p>\n
is not so.    The petitioner could not refer to any document<\/p>\n
which could answer the description of standing orders as<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
contemplated in Section 2(f). That being so, these trainees<\/p>\n
cannot be exempted from the purview of the definition of<\/p>\n
’employee’ in Section 2(f) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Admittedly, if these trainees are also included in the<\/p>\n
number of workmen of the hospital, clearly the number of<\/p>\n
workmen would exceed 50. The exemption under section 16(1)<\/p>\n
(a) is available only to a Co-operative Society, who employs<\/p>\n
less than 50 employees.       Since taking into account the so<\/p>\n
called trainees also the number of employees exceeds 50, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under<\/p>\n
Section 16(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
      9.    Although in view of my above finding it is not<\/p>\n
necessary for disposal of this writ petition to consider the<\/p>\n
same, I also find merit in the contention of the respondent that<\/p>\n
for attracting Section 16(1)(a), the society employing less than<\/p>\n
50 employees should also be one working without the aid of<\/p>\n
power. It is common knowledge that no hospital can function<\/p>\n
without the aid of power.      Therefore, since the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
hospital is working with the aid of power, clearly for that<\/p>\n
reason also, the petitioner falls out side the scope of Section<\/p>\n
16(1)(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      10. For the above reasons, the challenge against Ext.P9<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
order clearly fails.     Accordingly, the original petition is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a fervent<\/p>\n
plea that if the petitioner is now forced to pay the demand, the<\/p>\n
Society would have no other option, but to close down. I do<\/p>\n
not find that consideration of sympathy can weigh with this<\/p>\n
Court in deciding a question of law. But I make it clear that it<\/p>\n
would be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate<\/p>\n
authorities    under   the   Employees   Provident   Funds  and<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for appropriate exemptions<\/p>\n
and remissions and I hope that the appropriate authority<\/p>\n
would consider the same with the sympathy it deserves<\/p>\n
considering the fact that the petitioner is a Co-operative<\/p>\n
Society and the respondent organisation seeks to protect the<\/p>\n
welfare of the employees of the petitioner’s establishment who<\/p>\n
would be likely to be rendered jobless, if the demand is<\/p>\n
enforced. In any event the petitioner shall be given at least<\/p>\n
four months’ time to pay off the amount demanded.<\/p>\n
                                         S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Acd<\/p>\n
O.P.No.38287\/02    12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 38287 of 2002(G) 1. RAJESH KRISHNAN, SECRETARY, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) For Respondent :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2229,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009"},"wordCount":2229,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009","name":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund ... on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T18:37:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-krishnan-vs-the-asst-provident-fund-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Krishnan vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}