{"id":265925,"date":"2007-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-04-02T22:29:54","modified_gmt":"2014-04-02T16:59:54","slug":"n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                    Dated :    22-1-2007\n                              \n                            Coram\n                              \n           The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM\n                             and\n       The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n\n                              \n                     W.A.No.581 of 2002\n\n\nN.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd.,\nrep.by its Director,\nSF-256, Kannampalayam Post,\nTrichy Road,\nCoimbatore - 641 402.         ...            Appellant\n\n\n                             Vs.\n\n\nThe Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,\nOffice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\nBhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,\nPost Box No.3875,\nDr.Balasundaram Road,\nCoimbatore - 641 018.         ...            Respondent\n\n\n      This  Writ  Appeal has been filed under Clause  15  of\nLetters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge\nin W.P.No.2621 of 1997 dated 10.12.2001.\n\n          For Appellant       :    Mr.R.Parthiban\n\n          For Respondent      :    Ms.V.J.Latha\n\n                              \n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tN. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      This  writ appeal is filed against the order  made  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.2621 of 1997 dated 10.12.2001 declining to  interfere<\/p>\n
with the proceedings of the respondent dated 14.2.1997.<\/p>\n
      2.    The  brief facts necessary for disposal of  this<\/p>\n
writ appeal are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
      (a)   Appellant  is  a Textile Mill,  engaged  in  the<\/p>\n
manufacture  of cotton yarn.  The Mill was originally  owned<\/p>\n
by  M\/s.Bharat Textiles, which was a partnership firm and it<\/p>\n
was  taken  over  by the petitioner Mill  with  effect  from<\/p>\n
14.2.1994.  According to the appellant Mill, at the time  of<\/p>\n
taking over, the Mill had only 3000 spindles and after  that<\/p>\n
the  appellant added another 3000 spindles in the same  unit<\/p>\n
and  established a new unit known as Unit-II with spindleage<\/p>\n
of 18,000.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)   At the time of taking over, eight employees were<\/p>\n
employed  in  the Bharat Textiles and they were absorbed  by<\/p>\n
the  appellant  Mill  and in respect of  them,  contribution<\/p>\n
under   the   Employees  Provident  Fund  and  Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
Provisions  Act<\/a>  were  made by the  appellant  Mill.   After<\/p>\n
establishment  of  Unit-II, production started  from  April,<\/p>\n
1995  and  the appellant Mill employed number of apprentices<\/p>\n
over  a  period of time and according to the appellant,  the<\/p>\n
said apprentices were engaged as per the standing orders.<\/p>\n
      (c)   The  respondent, by proceeding  dated  19.7.1996<\/p>\n
issued  a  notice stating that the appellant had  failed  to<\/p>\n
extend  the benefits of the Employees Provident  Fund  to  a<\/p>\n
large  number  of  employees including the  casual\/contract\/<\/p>\n
temporary   employees  and  therefore  the  petitioner   was<\/p>\n
directed  to  appear for an enquiry with  all  records.   On<\/p>\n
1.10.1996,  the  appellant submitted  a  representation  and<\/p>\n
stated  that  all the persons engaged were only  apprentices<\/p>\n
under  the  standing orders of the Mill and they were  being<\/p>\n
paid  stipend during the training period as per  the  scheme<\/p>\n
and  apprentices  are  excluded  from  the  purview  of  the<\/p>\n
definition of “employees” under the Employees Provident Fund<\/p>\n
and  Miscellaneous  Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952 and  therefore  the<\/p>\n
question  of paying contribution towards Employees Provident<\/p>\n
Fund in respect of the said apprentices does not arise.<\/p>\n
      (d)   An  enquiry was conducted on 1.10.1996  and  the<\/p>\n
appellant  produced  copy  of the  documents  including  the<\/p>\n
certified  standing orders and thereafter  by  letter  dated<\/p>\n
11.12.1996   the  respondent  observed  that  75%   of   the<\/p>\n
establishment’s total work force comprise of apprentices and<\/p>\n
therefore they should be considered as ‘Employees’ under the<\/p>\n
Act  with  a  direction to the appellant to enroll  all  the<\/p>\n
apprentices and extent the benefit of the Act for them.  The<\/p>\n
respondent also stated that ESI contributions were  deducted<\/p>\n
in  respect of the apprentices and therefore they are  bound<\/p>\n
to be given EPF benefit also.\n<\/p>\n
      (e)   According to the appellant, from December, 1996,<\/p>\n
the  provident  fund  contribution is being  paid  and  from<\/p>\n
October, 1994 to April, 1995, the appellant is not liable to<\/p>\n
pay provident fund contribution.\n<\/p>\n
      (f)   By  the  impugned  order  dated  14.2.1997,  the<\/p>\n
appellant  was directed to enroll all the apprentices  under<\/p>\n
ESI  Scheme and the appellant was directed to pay a  sum  of<\/p>\n
Rs.8,30,322.85 within a period of 15 days.  The  said  order<\/p>\n
was  challenged  by  the appellant on the  ground  that  the<\/p>\n
‘apprentice’ is not an ’employee’ within the meaning of  the<\/p>\n
Act  and  they are excluded from the definition of  employee<\/p>\n
and   no   contribution  is  payable  in  respect   of   the<\/p>\n
apprentices.   It  is  also stated that merely  because  the<\/p>\n
apprentices  are covered under the ESI Act,  the  management<\/p>\n
cannot  be  compelled to pay contribution to  the  Provident<\/p>\n
Fund.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein<\/p>\n
it is stated that the appellant is employing several persons<\/p>\n
under the name and style of ‘apprentices’ only to avoid  the<\/p>\n
statutory liability and more than 75% of the labour force is<\/p>\n
treated as apprentices by the appellant Mill.  It is  stated<\/p>\n
that  after  issuing  notice and receiving  explanation,  an<\/p>\n
enquiry  was  conducted  and during the  enquiry,  the  wage<\/p>\n
register,  attendance register, etc. were gone into  by  the<\/p>\n
respondents  and  a  factual  finding  was  arrived  at  and<\/p>\n
thereafter only the impugned order was passed.  It  is  also<\/p>\n
stated  in  the  counter affidavit that  after  issuance  of<\/p>\n
notice,  only the certified standing order was  ratified  on<\/p>\n
20.9.1996   and  the  period  for  which  the  enquiry   was<\/p>\n
conducted,  there was no certified standing  order.   It  is<\/p>\n
further submitted that on scrutiny of records, inspection of<\/p>\n
the  premises  and  after enquiry, it  was  found  that  the<\/p>\n
respondent had engaged more number of apprentices  than  the<\/p>\n
regular employees and the apprentices are doing regular work<\/p>\n
of  the  establishment and they were  not  learners  and  no<\/p>\n
period  is  specified for the apprentices.   It  is  further<\/p>\n
elaborated  that out of the 123 employees in the year  1995,<\/p>\n
80  were  shown as apprentices; and out of the 247 employees<\/p>\n
in the year 1996, 177 were shown as apprentices.  It is also<\/p>\n
stated  that the so called apprentices were paid  wages  for<\/p>\n
the  work and the payment were directly linked to the number<\/p>\n
of days they attended work and therefore the apprentices are<\/p>\n
directly contributing to the production of the establishment<\/p>\n
and are not learners.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    On  consideration of the rival contentions,  the<\/p>\n
learned   single  Judge  dismissed  the  writ  petition   on<\/p>\n
10.12.2001  taking note of the stand taken by the  appellant<\/p>\n
by letter dated 27.12.1996, in which the appellant requested<\/p>\n
the respondent to grant one year grace period from May, 1995<\/p>\n
to  April, 1996 for paying the contribution of the Provident<\/p>\n
Fund.  The said letter clearly establishes the admission  of<\/p>\n
the  liability of the appellant to pay contribution  towards<\/p>\n
Provident Fund.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The  learned counsel for the appellant submitted<\/p>\n
that  merely  because the impugned order was passed  by  the<\/p>\n
respondent solely on the ground that the appellant  remitted<\/p>\n
ESI  contribution  to  the apprentices and  the  apprentices<\/p>\n
having  been  exempted under section 2(f)<\/a> of  the  Employees<\/p>\n
Provident  Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952,  and<\/p>\n
they  having  been  engaged  under  the  certified  standing<\/p>\n
orders,  the  respondent has no jurisdiction to  direct  the<\/p>\n
appellant   to  remit  the  contribution  towards  Employees<\/p>\n
Provident Fund in respect of the apprentices.  In support of<\/p>\n
his  contention, the learned counsel cited the  decision  of<\/p>\n
the  Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2006) 2  SCC  381<\/p>\n
(Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v.  Central<\/p>\n
Arecanut  &  Coca  Marketing  and  Processing  Co-op.  Ltd.,<\/p>\n
Mangalore<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.    The  learned counsel for the respondent  on  the<\/p>\n
other  hand submitted that the appellant is evading  payment<\/p>\n
of  Provident Fund contribution to the workmen on the  guise<\/p>\n
of  having  engaged apprentices for the regular work  and  a<\/p>\n
factual finding is given by the respondent after perusal  of<\/p>\n
the  wage register, attendance register, etc. to the  effect<\/p>\n
that the term ‘apprentice’ is used instead of ‘workmen’ only<\/p>\n
to  defeat  the provisions of the Act.  The learned  counsel<\/p>\n
further  argued that the fact finding authority has come  to<\/p>\n
the  conclusion  that  more than 75% of  the  works  in  the<\/p>\n
appellant  Mill  are  being carried out  by  the  so  called<\/p>\n
apprentices  and  therefore  they  cannot  be   treated   as<\/p>\n
trainees\/learners and they are paid regular wages as per the<\/p>\n
number  of  days of their employment and the same cannot  be<\/p>\n
treated as stipend.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   We have considered the rival submissions made  by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent in the light of the pleadings  as<\/p>\n
well  as  the  order  of  the  learned  single  Judge  dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2001.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   Admittedly the appellant is paying contribution in<\/p>\n
respect  of  the  so  called apprentices  towards  Employees<\/p>\n
Provident  Fund from May, 1996, and requested the respondent<\/p>\n
on  27.12.1996 to give one year grace period for the payment<\/p>\n
of  contribution  towards Provident Fund from  May  1995  to<\/p>\n
April, 1996.  The said stand clearly establishes the factual<\/p>\n
aspect  that  the appellant has not engaged apprentices  and<\/p>\n
they  are  treated  as  regular  workmen.   If  at  all  the<\/p>\n
contention  of  the  appellant is to be  accepted  that  the<\/p>\n
appellant is engaging only apprentices and they shall not be<\/p>\n
treated   as  employees,  the  same  should  be  the   stand<\/p>\n
throughout.   On the contrary, one year grace  period  alone<\/p>\n
was sought for and the same was rejected.  There is no basis<\/p>\n
to  claim  one year grace period by the appellant as  it  is<\/p>\n
factually  found  by  the respondent in the  impugned  order<\/p>\n
after   perusing   the  records  and   after   hearing   the<\/p>\n
representative of the appellant Mill on 12.2.1997.<\/p>\n
      9.    A categorical finding is given by the respondent<\/p>\n
after  perusing the records that a modern textile mill  like<\/p>\n
the   appellant  establishment  cannot  run  solely  on  the<\/p>\n
strength of the apprentices alone.  Hence the respondent was<\/p>\n
of  the  view that the workmen in question were  the  actual<\/p>\n
employees  of  the  appellant establishment  and  should  be<\/p>\n
enrolled to the Provident Fund Scheme right from the date of<\/p>\n
their  eligibility.  The respondent also  perused  the  wage<\/p>\n
register and attendance register and found that the  persons<\/p>\n
in question were paid the wages for the actual days of their<\/p>\n
employment  and  not paid any stipend as  contended  by  the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      10.  The decision cited by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant  reported in (2006) 2 SCC 381 (Regional  Provident<\/p>\n
Fund  Commissioner,  Mangalore v. Central  Arecanut  &  Coca<\/p>\n
Marketing  and Processing Co-op. Ltd., Mangalore<\/a>)  will  not<\/p>\n
help  the  appellant as factually the respondent has  proved<\/p>\n
that actually the appellant has not engaged apprentices  and<\/p>\n
they are treated as regular employees and wages are paid for<\/p>\n
actual  days of their employment and only to circumvent  the<\/p>\n
statutory liability the appellant Mill has claimed that  the<\/p>\n
persons  are  engaged  as apprentices  and  not  as  regular<\/p>\n
employees.   If  really the appellant has not  employed  the<\/p>\n
persons as regular employees and not paid salary and  paying<\/p>\n
only  stipend, definitely appellant is entitled to  get  the<\/p>\n
benefits under section 2(f)<\/a> of the Employees Provident  Fund<\/p>\n
and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952.  Relying  upon  the<\/p>\n
documentary  evidences,  a categorical  factual  finding  is<\/p>\n
given  by  the  respondent that the  said  persons  are  not<\/p>\n
engaged  as  apprentices, but as workmen.   Hence  the  said<\/p>\n
decision  cannot  he held applicable to the  facts  of  this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   The  respondent  being  a  statutory  authority,<\/p>\n
exercised powers conferred on him under section 7(f)<\/a> of  the<\/p>\n
Employees  Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions  Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
1952,  and  factually found that the appellant is liable  to<\/p>\n
pay   contribution  to  the  Employees  Provident  Fund  and<\/p>\n
specifically found that the persons engaged by the appellant<\/p>\n
are  employees and not apprentices.  There is no  perversity<\/p>\n
in  the  said  finding.  The said order  is  upheld  by  the<\/p>\n
learned  single  Judge.  There is no error apparent  on  the<\/p>\n
face of the order of the respondent as well as the order  of<\/p>\n
the  learned  single Judge inviting interfere  in  the  writ<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   We do not find any merit in the writ appeal  and<\/p>\n
the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
vr\/<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
\nOffice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
\nBhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
\nPost Box No.3875,
\nDr.Balasundaram Road,
\nCoimbatore – 641 018.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22-1-2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.A.No.581 of 2002 N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd., rep.by its Director, SF-256, Kannampalayam Post, Trichy Road, Coimbatore – 641 […]<\/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-265925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - 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\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-02T16:59:54+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T16:59:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1777,\"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\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\",\"name\":\"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T16:59:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - 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\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-02T16:59:54+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T16:59:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007"},"wordCount":1777,"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\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007","name":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T16:59:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-e-p-c-textiles-ltd-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 22 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/265925","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=265925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}