Hyderabad: Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court ruled that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is a beneficial piece of legislation that has been enacted by the Parliament, specifically meant for the welfare of the working class. This social security measure is a humane homage the state pays under Articles 39 and 41 of the Constitution. The viability of the fund depends on the employer duly deducting the worker's contribution from their wages, adding his own share, and promptly depositing the sum into the fund constituted by the Act. The mechanics of the system will suffer paralysis if the employer fails to perform his function. The dynamics of this beneficial statute derive their locomotive power from the funds regularly flowing into the statutory bill.
The proper implementation of various schemes under the Act is solely dependent upon the prompt compliance by the establishment. The petitioner filed an appeal under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, before the appellate authority. However, he failed to deposit the statutory amount and sought a waiver of the same. The industrial tribunal rejected the plea for a 75 per cent waiver, stating that the impugned order pertains to 2017 and the matter has been stayed for the last five years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for a complete waiver of 75 per cent of the pre-deposit condition.
In the interest of justice, the appeal was admitted on the remittance of 30 per cent of the determined amount under section 7-A within six weeks from the date of passing the order. Upon compliance with the said condition, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, and the appeal was admitted for consideration and hearing. Aggrieved by the said order, the school filed the present writ petition, stating, among other things, that important documents, the inquiry report, and salary register copies were not furnished to the petitioner, despite specific requests.
The petitioner further claimed that no reasons were assigned as to how the dues, amounting to about Rs 12 lakh, had been determined. Rejecting the plea of the petitioner, Justice Nanda pointed out that this court is of the firm opinion that, as per section 7.0 of the Act, 1952, 75 per cent of the amount determined should be deposited for the admission of the appeal under section 7-I of the Act. However, the tribunal was considerate to the petitioner-school and ordered the school to remit 30% of the determined amount under Section 7-A within six weeks from the date of passing the order. The judge further held that the reduction of the pre-deposit amount to 30 per cent is not illegal, and since there is no breach of any fundamental right of the petitioner, this court is of the firm opinion that when the appeal is still pending adjudication by the competent court (tribunal) as stipulated under law, this court cannot entertain a writ petition on the same subject under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Medico with disabilities challenges refusal of seat
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea of an aspiring doctor seeking admission under the quota prescribed for persons with disabilities. Maryam Rasheed Hussain filed a writ petition aggrieved by the action of the Kaloji Narayana Rao University in rejecting the case of the petitioner on medical grounds. The petitioner, who appeared for the NEET examination successfully, pointed out that the competent medical authority had certified the petitioner as one with 77 per cent handicapped and was therefore eligible for being considered in the quota prescribed. However, the university rejected the case of the petitioner stating inter alia that the petitioner suffered a higher degree of disability and that the medical council regulations did not permit a person of such nature to undergo the degree course. The panel voiced the idea of referring the matter to an independent board but posted the matter to October 14 for the university to respond.
NFC housekeeping staff seek regularisation
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the actions of the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in not regularizing the services of its housekeeping staff, supervisor and labour class. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by D . Somalingan and seven others, alleging that non-regularization in category-IV of employment was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners also alleged that the same was contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of judgements. The standing counsel, appearing for the union, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as service-related disputes pertaining to the respondent falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The standing counsel also pointed out that the Department of Atomic Energy was notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act and therefore, no remedy could be granted by the High Court. Reference was also made to the previous order passed by the single judge of the court deciding the issue of jurisdiction vis-Ã -vis service disputes pertaining to the respondent. On request of the petitioners for withdrawal of the writ plea, the judge proceeded to dismiss the writ plea granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue remedies by approaching the appropriate legal forum.
