ROLLING OF PAPAD NOT COVERABLE UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT
By filing the appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the order, passed by the EPF Authority under section 7A of the Act stating that the appellant does not fall under any of the heads in the ‘schedule I’ appended to the Act as the establishment/industry of the appellant has not yet been notified in the scheduled head u/s 1(3)(a) or 1(3)(b) of the Act.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the EPF Authority has covered the establishment of the appellant relying on the case M/s. Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad decided by the Supreme Court but in fact that case was not contested by the proprietor, Mrs. Pushpa Berry, of M/s. Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lajjat Papad and in that case the Counsel of Mrs. Pushpa Berry/appellant had comfortably agreed to make compliance under the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court passed order relying upon the consent of the petitioner/establishment. Hence, the ratio of that case has no binding effect upon any other case. The appellant establishment cannot be brought under the purview of the Act in the absence of any scheduled head for coverage of such establishment. Impugned order suffers from infirmity and quashed. Appeal is allowed.
M/s. Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad, Bhopal vs. Asstt. P.F. Commissioner, SRO, EPFO, Bhopal
ATA No.617(8)/2011 decided on 2.3.2012