Gajendran E. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Banglore

Gajendran E. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Banglore

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 21, 1997

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/378639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/378639
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.
Decided On: Feb 21, 1997
Case Number: W.P. No. 15722/1991
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 181 (4): [N.Ananda, J] Jurisdiction to try the offence under Held, Under Section 181(4) of Cr.P.C., if any offence relates to misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offe...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gajendran E.

Advocate C.M. Monnappa, Adv.

Respondent

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Banglore

Advocate Harikrishna S. Holla, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A
Reported In: 1997(3)KarLJ670

Excerpt

.....any offence relates to misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which was subject to the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. on facts held, the six wind operated electricity generators were leased to petitioners and petitioners had to account for the same at manipal. the lease was accepted by petitioners at manipal. therefore, trial of a case of criminal breach of trust before jurisdiction court at udupi is in conformity with provisions under section 181(4) of cr.p.c., -- section 482: quashing of proceedings offences under sections 406, 409 and 420 o f i.p.c., - rejection of application made under section 227 of cr.p.c., - held, it is well settled law when a petition filed under section 482 cr.p.c. seeking quashing of charges framed against accused, the high court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons. such an order could be passed only in exceptional cases or rare cases. moreover, once the trial court has framed charges against the accused persons, trial must proceed with necessary assistance. - this clearly shows that the lessor has got absolute control over branches and these branches are accountable for the fees collected by them. this shows that the centre has got complete control over the financial matter as well of the branches. this also clearly indicates that centre has got control over the branches. all these expenses should be met by the branches with the 50% of the receipts left out after paying the centre 50% of the gross receipts'.all these clauses in the agreement clearly indicate that the centre has got full control over the branches and therefore it could be said that there is interdependence between the branches and the centre......the employees of the centre; that there is no control over the employees employed in the branch and the workers are working on their will and wish and as such the contribution quantified is not applicable to the petitioner. this contention was overruled ruled by the respondent and the impugned order is passed. the same is challenged by the petitioner in this proceedings. 2. i have heard mr. poonacha on behalf of mr. monnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner. it is relevant to peruse the agreement wherein the following clauses are incorporated; it reads thus : '2. the lessee shall adhere to the fee structure and other rules and regulations of the school, existing and which may be framed from time to time in the future. 3. the lessee shall issue receipts for all fees collected and submit to the lessor a weekly statement of all such receipts. 4. the lessee shall also permit duly authorised representatives of the lessor to visit the centre and examine the books of the centre, and answer all queries pertaining to the management and day to day affairs of the centre. 5. the lessee shall also pay weekly to the lessor fifty per cent (50) of the gross receipt. 6. the lessor shall supply books and other teaching material required for use at the centre, and the lessee shall pay for same at cost. 7. the lessor shall include the address of the lessee's centre in all advertisements in the daily newspaper, hand bills etc., whenever such advertisements are deemed necessary. 8. the lessor shall pay the rent of the premises but all other expenses such as staff salaries, hire of furniture, electricity etc., shall be borne by the lessee.' the second clause of lease agreement states that the lessee shall adhere to the fee structure and other rules of the school existing and which may be framed from time to time. this means the branches have no independent fee structure. it has to depend on the centre on this aspect. clause 3 states that the lessee shall issue receipts for all.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.P. Mohankumar, J.

1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A order passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner runs an establishment called the London School of Speech, No. 39 Coles Road, Bangalore. This institution was started by the petitioner's brother V. T. Alexander. It has got 8 branches having 32 employees. As the said Alexander found it difficult to run the institutions he closed some of the centres and leased the remaining ones to the senior teachers. Thereafter the respondent initiated a proceedings under Section 7A of the Act and notice was issued in this behalf. The present Principal of the institution is the sister of Late V. T. Alexander. She responded to the notice and contested the claim. According to her the branches are independent; that they have no control over the said branches; that the employees of the branches cannot be treated as the employees of the centre; that there is no control over the employees employed in the branch and the workers are working on their will and wish and as such the contribution quantified is not applicable to the petitioner. This contention was overruled ruled by the respondent and the impugned order is passed. The same is challenged by the petitioner in this proceedings.

2. I have heard Mr. Poonacha on behalf of Mr. Monnappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is relevant to Peruse the agreement wherein the following clauses are incorporated; it reads thus :

'2. The lessee shall adhere to the fee structure and other rules and regulations of the school, existing and which may be framed from time to time in the future.

3. The lessee shall issue receipts for all fees collected and submit to the lessor a weekly statement of all such receipts.

4. The lessee shall also permit duly authorised representatives of the lessor to visit the centre and examine the books of the centre, and answer all queries pertaining to the management and day to day affairs of the centre.

5. The lessee shall also pay weekly to the lessor Fifty per cent (50) of the gross receipt.

6. The lessor shall supply books and other teaching material required for use at the centre, and the Lessee shall pay for same at cost.

7. The lessor shall include the address of the lessee's centre in all advertisements in the daily newspaper, hand bills etc., whenever such advertisements are deemed necessary.

8. The lessor shall pay the rent of the premises but all other expenses such as staff salaries, hire of furniture, electricity etc., shall be borne by the lessee.'

The second clause of lease agreement states that the lessee shall adhere to the fee structure and other rules of the school existing and which may be framed from time to time. This means the branches have no independent fee structure. It has to depend on the centre on this aspect. Clause 3 states that the lessee shall issue receipts for all fees collected and to submit to the lessor a weekly statement of all such receipts. This clearly shows that the lessor has got absolute control over branches and these branches are accountable for the fees collected by them. As far as Clause 4 is concerned, it specially states that the centre has got all the powers to visit the branches to check the books and they are liable to answer all the queries regarding the day to day affairs. Clause 5 is the crucial clause which makes the lessee to pay weekly 50% of the gross receipts to the management. This shows that the centre has got complete control over the financial matter as well of the branches. Clause 6 says that the branches are liable to Day the cost of the books and other materials supplied by the centre. This also clearly indicates that centre has got control over the branches. It shows that the branches have no independent right to teach in its own way and whatever has to be taught has to be approved by the centre. Clause 8 indicates that the lessor shall pay the rent of premises when the lessee runs the institution. It also indicates that all other expenses such as staff salaries, hire of furniture, electricity etc., shall be borne by the lessee himself. All these expenses should be met by the branches with the 50% of the receipts left out after Paying the centre 50% of the gross receipts'. All these clauses in the agreement clearly indicate that the centre has got full control over the branches and therefore it could be said that there is interdependence between the branches and the centre. There is functional integrality between the centre and the branches. As such I do not find any error committed by the authorities by passing the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed.

4. At the end, Mr. Poonacha requested that he may be permitted to seek waiver of the enforcement of the Act. The petitioner is free to make any appropriate application under Section 90 of the Act seeking waiver. If such an application is made, the authority may deal with the same in accordance with law.

5. Writ petition disposed of.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1997 Same Parties Gajendran E. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Banglore Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, ...

Labour and Industrial