CGIT Jabalpur, Order dated 01/10/2026 EPFA 34 2021 on 1 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Passed on 01st day of October, 2026)

Under challenge in the present appeal is order dated 27.09.2021, passed by the Respondent Authority under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( In Short The ‘Act’) by which the Respondent Authority has held the Appellant Establishment liable to deposit PF dues of one Yogendra Agrawal, the complainant, for the period between 02/2004 to

10/2018, has assessed the amount at Rs. 1,84,783/- and has directed payment of this amount within the time framed mentioned in the appeal.

The skeletal facts are mainly that Seth Shri Ramrikhdas Parasrampuria Shekshanik Evam Parmarthik Trust, Indore is a registered public trust under the M.P. Public Trust Act. The Parasrampuria Agrawal Higher Secondary School is a registered society, registered under Societies Registration Act with Government of M.P. (Annex. 1 & 2) to the Appeal. The Society runs the school in the name of Parasrampuria Agrawal Higher Secondary School. The School is covered under the ‘Act’. One Yogendra Agrawal filed a complaint, before the RespondentAuthority, with an allegation that he is an employee of the Appellant School and has not been granted PF benefits. The Respondent Authority issued a notice dated 11.09.2018 with the details to of Bank Account of the Complainant and the complaint made by him, requiring the Appellant School to show-cause with respect to the complaint and documents. The Appellant Establishment submitted its reply, in which it was stated that the Complainant was never an employee of the Appellant School rather he was an employee of the Trust, also that the Trust and the School are two different bodies, having their different byelaws and regulations for their governance, as they are involved in different sets of activities. The Trust runs various charitable and religious institutions. It has been registered separately under the Income Tax Act and had never engaged at any point of time 20 or more employees, hence was never covered under the Act. The Appellant Establishment further stated that though the Complaint

Yogendra Agrawal was an employee of the Trust, he obtained somehow, a certificate by the Principal of the Appellant Establishment, stating him to be an employee of the Appellant School. This Certificate is against records and was in fact never issued by the Principal, who is said to have issued the said certificate. The complainant wrongly established the fact during the enquiry by showing said fake certificates and statement of his bank account that he was an employee of the Appellant Establishment. Both these documents were challenged by the Appellant Establishment, but the Respondent Authority passed the impugned order with impugned findings and assessment, ignoring the objections of the Appellant Establishment before it and by blindly relying upon the report of the Enforcement Officer as well the fake documents produced by the Complainant during the enquiry, hence this Appeal.

Grounds of appeal, taken in the memo of appeal, are mainly that the impugned order has been passed by the Respondent Authority by way of wrongly holding that the Complainant was an employee of the Appellant Establishment, hence it was an error committed by Respondent Authority on law and fact. The Respondent Authority further committed error in law by ignoring the objections of the Appellant Establishment and blindly relying on the documents produced by complainant in recording the impugned findings and assessment. Also, that the Respondent Authority illegally exercised its jurisdiction according to law in relying on the impugned findings and assessment.

In its counter to the Appeal, the Respondent Organization has taken a case that the Act is a beneficial

legislation, providing social security to the employees working in any Establishment engaging 20 or more persons on any day in a year. It provides for compulsory deduction of provident fund from employees and a contribution from the employer which is to be deposited by the employer by the 15th day of the next month when the wages of the employee become due. This deposited amount earns interest and is paid back to the employees by way of provident fund and bonus as well insurance to them. Failure to deposit the legitimate dues of employees, attracts action by the Respondent Authority under Section 7-A of the Act, for the payment of dues. The Respondent Authority has further taken an objection that the present appeal is barred by limitation under Rule 7(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (in short the ‘Rules’) because it has been filed beyond the period of limitation of 60 days without showing any sufficient ground of the delay in filing the appeal and without getting the delay condoned. Thus, the present appeal is not maintainable as being time barred in the light of settled preposition of law. On this point, namely in the case of Post Shramik Co-operative Enterprise v. EPFO (2018(156) FLR 363 (Cal HC) and in the case of Bihar State Industrial Development Corp. v. EPFO [2017 (154) FLR 88 (Patna HC)] the Hon’ble Courts have taken the similar views. That this appeal also suffers with defect of non-joinder of necessary party, the Complainant Yogendra Agrawal, who lodged the said complaint, has been not been impleaded as party to the case. The impugned findings and assessment had been recorded in law and fact, on placing reliance on the Certificate dated 03.04.2018, issued by the Principal of the Appellant School himself and statement of Bank Account, filed by the Complainant. It is further the

case of the Respondent Authority that the Principal was examined during the enquiry, in which he had supported his certificate. The Respondent side has prayed that appeal be dismissed.

I have heard arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Uttam Maheswari for the Appellant Establishment and Mr. Jubin Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Authority. I have gone through the records as well.

The Appellant Establishment has filed written submissions also, which are part of the record. I have gone through the written submissions also.

From perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination –

“1. Whether, the appeal is barred by limitation?

2. Whether, the findings of the Respondent Authority that the Complainant Yogendra Agrawal is employee of the Appellant School and is entitled to be covered under the Act & the Appellant Establishment is under obligation in law to deposit his PF dues under the Act as well the assessment have been recorded correctly in law and fact?” Issue No. 1 –

This issued is with regards to limitation. The impugned order was passed on 27.09.2021. The present appeal was filed on 30.12.2021. It comes out from perusal of record that an application for delay of condonation in filing the appeal was filed by the Appellant Establishment, which was allowed after hearing vide order dated 07.01.2022 and the delay was condoned. Hence, after condonation of delay,

this delay cannot be held maintainable as barred by limitation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2-

As it comes out from the perusal of impugned order and impugned findings that Yogendra Agrawal is an employee of the Appellant Establishment and is entitled to be covered under the Act as well the Appellant Establishment is under obligation in law to deposit his PF dues is based on two facts. First is the Certificate issued by the Principal which shows that the Complainant is an Accountant of the Appellant School and second is the statement of Bank account of the Complainant. Thae complainant filed a complaint before the Respondent Authority, which Annexure-8 to the memo of Appeal and is not disputed. He himself admits in this complaint that his wages and salary are being paid by the Trust, though his version is that it is being done just to deprive him from benefits under the Act. The Complainant further filed his signed statement of wages which he claims to have received from 2002 to 2018. He has also filed statement of account, perusal of which establishes his fact in the complaint that his wages were paid by the Trust and not by the School. There are only one or two entries, namely entry dated 06.10.2004 & 09.11.2004, showing credit of Rs. 999 & Rs. 3,333 from the account of Parasrampuria School, the remaining entries are with respect to the Ramrikhdas Parasrampuria Trust only, This is in support of his allegation in the complaint that his wages were being paid by the Trust. Now, remains his self serving statement of yearly payment, which the complainant claims to have been paid, which cannot be

relied upon because it does not contain any seal and signature of any authority. The Appellant Establishment had specifically denied the case of the Complainant before the Respondent Authority that the complainant was an employee of Appellant School, rather has claimed that he was an employee of the Trust, who was engaged in different charitable activities. The burden to prove that he has been in fact an employee of the Appellant Establishment lies on the complainant. The Learned Counsel has referred to a Judgment of Hon’ble High court of Bombay, in the case Nirtubai v. Head Master, Higher Grade Marathi Girls School (2014) 2 MHLJ Page 861, in which it has been held “that a person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee , the burden would be on him”. The second basis of the impugned findings in the impugned order is the certificate issued by the Principal on 03.04.2018, for the year 2017-2018, in which it has been stated that the Complainant Yogendra Agrawal is working as Accountant in the school and he has being paid Rs. 5,000/- per month. When there is no appointment letter of the complainant, no service record, his statement also that his wages are in fact being paid by the Trust, which he has said in his complaint, on the basis of which the enquiry proceeded the findings recorded by the Respondent Authority is only on the basis of a Certificate for one year issued by the Principal by the School, which does not even mention the year since when the complainant was appointed in the school, the impugned findings of the Respondent Authority cannot be said to have been recorded correctly in fact and law.

Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the Act which defines employee and employer under the Act are being reproduced as follows –

2(e) “employer” means-

(i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause f of sub-section 1 of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and

(ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent; 2(f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person,-

(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment;

(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act,

1961 (52 of 1961) or under the standing orders of the establishment; A bare perusal of these provisions shows that in the case in hand the employer is one from whom the employee gets his wages directly or indirectly. Since, it is not established that the wages were given by the Appellant School rather the complainant himself admits that his wages were given to him by the Trust, the complainant cannot be said to be an employee of the Appellant School and Appellant School cannot be said to be an employer of the complainant in the case in hand.

In the light of above discussion, the impugned findings and assessment are held to have been recorded incorrectly in law and fact and are liable to be set aside.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the light of above discussion and findings, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2021 is set aside. No order as to cost. Date:- 01.10.2026

P.K. SRIVASTAVA

(PRESIDING OFFICER)

Judgment Signed, dated and pronounced.

Date:- 01.10.2026

P.K. SRIVASTAVA

(PRESIDING OFFICER)