{"id":228232,"date":"2011-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-22T06:44:32","modified_gmt":"2017-09-22T01:14:32","slug":"the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/09\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.3469 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nThe Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,\nRep. by its Special Officer,\n187, North Veli Street,\nMadurai-625 001.                     ... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.Employees' Provident Fund Organization,\n  Rep. by its Regional Provident Fund\n  Commissioner,\n  Lady Doak College Road,\n  Chokkikulam,\n  Madurai-625 002.\n\n2.The Recovery Officer,\n  Employees' Provident Fund Organization,\n  Lady Doak College Road,\n  Chokkikulam,\n  Madurai-625 0002.                  ... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to issue a Writ of  Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd\nrespondent in his proceedings in the Notice of Demand No.TN\/MDU\/4169\/RECOY\n2009103\/circle 19\/2009, dated 31.03.2009.\n\n!For Petitioner\t     ... Mr.R.Sivamanogran\n^For Respondents     ... Mr.V.S.V.Venkateshwaran\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, dated 31th March 2009,<br \/>\ndirecting the petitioner to deposit contribution on behalf of security agencies,<br \/>\nhas invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, to quash the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The admitted facts are that the petitioner society is registered under<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and has its own Provident Fund<br \/>\nScheme and is an exempted establishment, under section 17 of the Employees<br \/>\nProvident Fund Scheme &amp; Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as &#8216;Act&#8217;].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The petitioner availed the services of three security agencies, i.e.,<br \/>\nVictory Security service, Loyal Security Service and Jayam\/Sward Security<br \/>\nService.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.All the security agencies are independent establishment, carrying on<br \/>\nbusiness of providing security service to various establishments.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The Victory Security Service and Loyal Security service are registered<br \/>\nunder the Act, and allotted code No.TN\/42886 and TN\/29536 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The case of the petitioner is that the code number is allotted only to<br \/>\nan independent establishment, and that petitioner has no legal obligation to pay<br \/>\nthe contribution qua the employees of independent establishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.It is not disputed that the security agencies engaged by the petitioner,<br \/>\ncommitted default in payment of Provident Fund contribution and that proceedings<br \/>\nwere initiated against the said Security Agencies, under section 7-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The petitioner was also impleaded as one of the parties, by treating it<br \/>\nto be principal employer. The order, dated 23rd January 2008 was passed by the<br \/>\nauthorized officer, under section 7-A of the Act, imposing the liability of each<br \/>\nof the security agencies, for payment of contribution. In the order, it was<br \/>\nstipulated that in the event of failure of the security agencies to pay the<br \/>\ncontributions, the amount due will be recovered from the petitioner, being the<br \/>\nprincipal employer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The case of the petitioner is, that after passing of the order, on 23rd<br \/>\nJune 2008, proceedings were initiated against the security agencies, for<br \/>\nrecovery of the amount adjudicated, under section 7A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.Thereafter, all of a sudden, the impugned order, dated 31th March 2009<br \/>\nwas passed directing the petitioner to pay the contribution, as assessed under<br \/>\nsection 7-A of the Act, on the ground that the security agencies had failed to<br \/>\ndeposit the amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, fairly<br \/>\nconceded that the liability to pay the contribution on behalf of the Jayam\/Sward<br \/>\nSecurity Service is not disputed, as under 30 of the Employees Provident Fund<br \/>\nScheme, 1952, it is the duty of the principal employer to recover the<br \/>\ncontribution, i.e. employer and employees share and deposit it with the<br \/>\nProvident Fund Commissioner. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner, recovery of contribution qua the Jayam\/Sward Security<br \/>\nService from the petitioner is upheld, and the petitioner is directed to deposit<br \/>\nthe contribution within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged, the notice of demand<br \/>\nwith respect to contribution payable by other two security agencies, on the<br \/>\nground that once these contractors were allotted independent code number, the<br \/>\nliability could not be fixed, on the petitioner, being an exempted<br \/>\nestablishment, under section 17 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Division Bench of Patna High<br \/>\nCourt, in the case of Bata India Ltd., &amp; Ors. Vs. Union of India &amp; Others [2001<br \/>\nIV LLN 536 (Pat.DB], wherein, it has been held as under:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;&#8230;.By its notification, dated 8 February 1965, published in the Gazette<br \/>\nof India of February 20, 1965 (Annexure 3), Government of India in the<br \/>\ndepartment of social security had, in exercise of the powers conferred by C1.(b)<br \/>\nof Sub-Sec.(1) of s.17 of the Act, exempted the Mokama unit and other units of<br \/>\nthe petitioner-company mentioned therein from the operation of the scheme with<br \/>\neffect from the dates mentioned in the notification with respect to the<br \/>\ndifferent units. The petitioner-company has set up a trust exemption for<br \/>\nmanaging the accounts of provident fund of its employees. It took the stand that<br \/>\nin view of the exemption granted by the respondent authorities, the petitioner<br \/>\nwas completely exempted form the provisions of the Act and the scheme which<br \/>\nwould mean that the trust shall maintain the accounts of its direct employees<br \/>\nonly, and is no longer obliged to maintain the provident fund accounts of<br \/>\ncontractor&#8217;s labourers&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; (Page 537, Para:2)<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;..On a combined reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and<br \/>\nthe scheme it is clear that in case exemption from operation of the scheme is<br \/>\nallowed to the principal employer, he is out of the net of the scheme.  He is<br \/>\nthen obliged to set up a trust and maintain the accounts of his employees.  Such<br \/>\na literal construction, therefore, naturally leads to the conclusion that the<br \/>\ncontractors are within the mischief of the scheme.  Not having obtained any<br \/>\nexemption within the meaning of Sec.17 of the Act, they (the Contractors) are<br \/>\nstill covered by the scheme and obliged to obtain separate code numbers under<br \/>\nthe Act and the scheme and deposit the contributions with the authorities under<br \/>\nthe Act.&#8221; (Page 540 Para;11)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends, that this<br \/>\njudgment will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner, as an order<br \/>\npassed under section 7A, which has attained finality, the petitioner was held<br \/>\nliable to pay the contribution, on the failure of the security agencies to make<br \/>\nthe payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner now to challenge, the<br \/>\nexecutory order, once the adjudicatory order was allowed to attain finality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents,<br \/>\nthat under clause 30 of the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, it is the<br \/>\nduty of the principal employer to pay the provident fund contribution,<br \/>\ntherefore, the order passed under section 7-A, was in consonance with the<br \/>\nscheme, which deserves to be upheld, consequently, the executory order  can also<br \/>\nnot be subject to challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an exempted establishment,<br \/>\nunder section 17 of the Act, therefore, is not covered under the Act. The<br \/>\nemployees of the contractor, by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be<br \/>\nemployees of the principal employer,\tbut, as rightly conceded by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, the liability of unregistered contractors,<br \/>\nwould fall on the petitioner, in view of clause 30 of the Employees&#8217; Provident<br \/>\nFund Scheme, 1952, whereas with respect to the contractors, who are registered<br \/>\nwith the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to<br \/>\nbe treated as &#8216;independent employer&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.The petitioner, therefore, cannot be treated to be &#8216;principal employer&#8217;<br \/>\nfor the purposes of those contractors.  The impugned part of the order, under<br \/>\nsection 7-A, is also under challenge before this court and not only the<br \/>\nexecutory order, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.In view of the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of Patna High<br \/>\nCourt, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, deserves to be<br \/>\naccepted. The liability with respect to the contractors registered and having<br \/>\nindependent code cannot be fastened on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.The writ petition is partly allowed, and the impugned part of order<br \/>\npassed under section 7-A, as also executory order, fixing liability of security<br \/>\nagencies having independent code i.e. Victory security service and Loyal<br \/>\nsecurity service, on the petitioner is quashed, and the impugned order qua<br \/>\nJayam\/Sward security service is upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22.The respondents shall be at liberty to execute the order under section<br \/>\n7-A, against the Victory security service and Loyal security service<br \/>\nindependently.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/09\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.3469 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 The Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer, 187, North Veli [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees&#039; Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees&#039; Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-22T01:14:32+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T01:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1312,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\",\"name\":\"The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T01:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-22T01:14:32+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T01:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"wordCount":1312,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","name":"The Madurai District Central ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T01:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-madurai-district-central-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Madurai District Central &#8230; vs Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/228232","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=228232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}