R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The instant writ petitions are filed, questioning the order dated 14.8.1997, regarding deposit of contributory provident fund, with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, being invalid to the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the enactment of 1989') and the Rules framed by State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 43 of the said enactment, known as the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993) (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1993').
2. In all these petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, these petitions deserve to be disposed of by a common order, treating SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/2000 as the leading case.
3. In all these petitions, interpretation of Sections 5, 7(5), 10, 12 14, 16(2) and 43 of the enactment of 1989; and Rule 2(r) and (s) Rule 68 to 81 and Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, and Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1952'), read with Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, with reference to Item No. 24 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, is involved. In all these petitions, validity of order dated 14.8.1997 can be disposed of without delineating the fats of each case. As the question involved in these petitions, will have a very wide ramification, therefore, before dealing with the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be expedient to give a synopsis of the various provisions of Acts and Rules, referred during the course of arguments, at the Bar.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, invited my attention to Sub-section (2) of the Section 16 of the enactment of 1989, which provides that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount, at such rate, as may be prescribed from time to time. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Prahlad Singh, also invited my attention to Chapter-VIII of the Rules of 1993, wherein, a complete scheme of contributory provident fund, is prescribed by State Government, in exercise of its power, conferred under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989.
5. Under Rule-68 of the Rules of 1993, it is provided that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees. Sub-rule (5) of the said Rules, further provides that all accumulated, current or future accretions to the provident fund amount of the employees and contributions of the institution shall be deposited in the interest bearing personal deposit account, by the institution in Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, within three days of the drawal of salary.
6. Indisputably, some of the petitioner-institutions before this Court had been given personal deposit account numbers and they were continuously depositing contributory provident funds in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, as envisaged under the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993. But, the aforesaid deposits have been interrupted by the impugned order dated 14.8.1997, Annexure-10 to the leading writ petition, whereby, contributory provident fund accounts, have been transferred from the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, to the account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Some educational institutions, where twenty or more than twenty employees were employed, were compelled to deposit contributory provident fund, in the office of the respondent No. 5 with which they are aggrieved.
7. The learned Advocate General, Shri S.M. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4, at the very outset, candidly invited my attention to the mandatory provisions, envisaged under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 and has taken me through the mandatory provisions, envisaged under Section 5 of the enactment of 1989, which provides for withdrawal of recognition of an educational institution by State Government; Section 10, empowering the State Government to take over management; Section 12, providing for annual statement of properties; Section 13, providing for prior approval for transfer of management; Section 14, regarding closure of recognised institutions, by a governmental authority; Section 15, providing prior approval before transfer by way of sale, mortgage, charge or otherwise of any right or interest in or possession of any immovable property of an aided institution. According to the learned Advocate General, under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952, it is provided that any establishment, belonging to or under the control of the Central Government, or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund, or old age pension, in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government, governing such benefits, are exempted from applicability of the mandatory provisions, envisaged under Act of 1952. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the control of the State Government, over recognised institutions, in State of Rajasthan, is writ large from perusal of the provisions, mentioned hereinabove, irrespective of the fact whether a recognised institution is on the list of Grant-in-Aid of the State Government or not.
8. The learned Counsel, Shri N.K. Maloo, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in two petitions, adopted the aforesaid argument, advanced by Shri Prahlad Singh. In addition to the argument, raised by Shri Prahlad Singh, he invited my attention to Annexure-3 to the writ petition, a notification dated 14.2.1983, whereby, the State Government, in exercise of its power, conferred by Section 17 of the Act of 1952, has exempted all schools, aided by State Government, from the scheme, framed under the Act of 1952. Shri Maloo also invited my attention to the fact that the State Government, for the purpose of regulating payment of Grant-in-Aid to the Non-Government Educational and Cultural Institutions in Rajasthan, framed Rules Rajasthan Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational and Cultural Institutions Rules, 1963, which were published in Rajasthan Gazette, on 24.1.1963, prior to passing of enactment of 1989 and before framing of the Rules of 1993.
9. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in other writ petitions, adopted the aforesaid arguments.
10. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Shri Narendra Jain, refuted the aforesaid arguments and vehemently urged before me that interpretation of the aforesaid section is to be examined in the light of definition of 'Non-Government Educational Institutions', given under Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1993; and in the light of definition of 'Recognised Institution', given under Rule (2)(s) of the said Rules. Shri Jain Urged before me that prior to notification dated 19.2.1982, which came into effect on its publication in Gazette of India dated 06.3.1982, in exercise of power, conferred by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1952, the Central Government specified certain classes of establishments, in which, 20 or more persons were employed, as covered by the Act of 1952. The establishments, so covered, included any college, whether or not affiliated with university, as also any school, whether or not recognised or aided by the Central or State Government. It also covered any other institutions, in which activities of imparting knowledge or training was carried on for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma, or any other academic distinction, recognised by State or Central Government, or functioning for educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State Government, or by any university or local authority, or other authority, owned or controlled by the State or Central Government, were carried on, by virtue of the aforesaid notification. It is submitted by Shri Narendra Jain, that from 06.3.1982, the Act of 1952 became applicable, inter alia, to all the educational institutions, whether or not recognised or aided by the Central Government, or by State of Rajasthan. According to Shri Jain, recognised institutions and institutions on the list of Grant-in-Aid, neither belong to the State Government, nor they are under its effective control, hence, after notification dated 06.3.1982, all the institutions, including the petitioner-institutions are to be governed by Act of 1952 and the practice of depositing contributory provident funds, with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is eminently just and proper and does not require interference, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. The learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri Narendra Jain, also invited my attention towards Item No. 24 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, wherein, it is provided that welfare of labour, including conditions of work, provident funds, employers' liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits are within the concurrent list, therefore, both State Legislature as well as Parliament are authorised to make law on the subject. The learned Counsel, Shri Jain, in support of his aforesaid contention, placed reliance on the decision, rendered by Supreme Court in case of M.P. Shikshak Congress and others v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and others, reported in : AIR1999SC443 .
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised at the Bar.
13. Indisputably, the subject-matter of provident fund falls within Item No. 24 of the concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, wherein, both Parliament and State Legislature are empowered to enact, therefore, it is to be decided first as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the Central Act of 1952, passed by Parliament would prevail over State enactment of 1989, or State enactment of 1989 would prevail over Central Act of 1952. There is no dispute between the parties that enactment of 1989 came into force on 01.1.1993, whereas, it got assent of the President, on 04.6.1992. It is conceded at the Bar that the educational institutions in State of Rajasthan, were brought within the fold of the Central Act of 1952 by notification dated 19.2.1982, which came into effect on its publication in the Gazette of India, dated 6th of March, 1982. Thus, within the meaning of Article 254(2) of Constitution, the enactment of 1989, passed by State Legislature, relating to provident fund, would prevail over the Central Act of 1952. Once it is held that the enactment of 1989, passed by State Legislature would prevail over the Central Act of 1952, then, there would be no difficulty to quash the order dated 14.8.1997.
14. Before concluding discussion on the subject, I consider it expedient to quote hereinbelow Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which reads thus:
(2) Where a law made by Legislature of a State, with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, than, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the president and has received his assent, prevail in that State:Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
15. From the discussion made hereinabove, I have no hesitation to hold that the provisions relating to deposit of contributory provident fund in the interest bearing personal deposit account by the educational institutions in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, enacted by State Legislature, by passing enactment of 1989, which received the assent of the President on 04.6.1992 and made enforceable with effect from 01.1.1993, would prevail over the Central Act of 1952, enacted by Parliament, in the State of Rajasthan, within the meaning of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Thus, the order impugned dated 14.8.1997, Annexure-10 to the leading writ petition, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The ratio decidendi in case of M.P. Shikshak Congress (supra), cited by the learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, is not analogous to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The decision, rendered in case of M.P. Shikshak Congress (supra), is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.
16. There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. It is to be imbibed that exemption, contemplated under Section 16(1)(b) of the Central Act of 1952 would apply only to those educational institutions, which either belong to Central Government or State Government, or are within the effective control of Central Government or State Government. The answer to the aforesaid question, whether the petitioner educational institutions in State of Rajasthan belong to State Government, or the petitioner educational institutions are within its effective control. It is conceded at the Bar that the petitioner educational institutions do not belong either to Central Government or State Government. Now, in depth, it is to be discussed and adjudicated as to whether the petitioner educational institutions are within the effective control of the State Government.
17. Coming to the merit of the aforesaid question, a close scrutiny of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the enactment of 1989, reveals that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount at such rate, as may be prescribed from time to time. It is to be imbibed that the State Government, in exercise of its power, under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989, framed the Rules of 1993, wherein, Chapter-VIII deals with contributory provident fund, prescribing detailed procedure relating to deposit of contributory provident fund, in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, within three days of the drawal of the salary. It is to be noticed that contributory provident fund is applicable to all recognised institutions, whether they are in the list of Grant-in-Aid or not. Rule 68 of the Rules of 1993, prescribes general rules for deposit of contributory provident fund, in personal deposit account of a recognised institution, whereas, Rule 69 prescribes how a subscriber, after joining the fund shall send to the Secretary of the institution, a nomination, conferring one or more persons the right to receive the amount, that may stand to his credit, in the fund, in the event of his death, before the amount has become payable, or having become payable, has not been paid. Rule 70 of the said rules provides how account shall be kept in the name of each subscriber, in which, shall be credited the subscriber's subscription, contribution made by the institution, and interest on subscriptions and contributions. Rule 71 provides conditions and rates of subscriptions, whereas, Rule 72 prescribes realisation of subscription. Rule 73 prescribes contribution by the institution, whereas, Rule 74 prescribes how interest is to be added to the subscription, at the end of each financial year. In order to maintain brevity, the further provisions, enisaged under Rules 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 of the Rules of 1993, do not require detailed discussion providing mode of advance from the fund, recovery of advance, circumstances in which accumulations are payable, to whom payable, how deductions are to be made, modes of payment and procedure prescribed for accounts and audit.
18. A close scrutiny of Sections 5, 7(5), 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the enactment of 1989, reveal that the State Government has effective control over all the recognised educational institutions of the State. Existence and survival of all recognised institutions, whether such institutions are in the list of Grant-in-Aid or not, depend at the discretion of the State Government, in the State of Rajasthan. The moment, any order under Section 14 of the enactment of 1989, is passed by the State Government, such institutions are not entitled to exist. Thus, survival and existence of any recognised educational institution, whether it is on the list of Grant-in-Aid or not, depends upon the discretion of the State Government, at various levels. under Section 5 of the said Act, where, management of an institution obtains recognition by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material particulars, or where, after obtaining recognition, an institution fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions, prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the competent authority, granting the recognition may, after giving such management, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, against the proposed action, withdraw the recognition. Similarly, under Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the said Act, no amount, out of aid, given for salary of the employees of an institution, shall be used for any other purpose. These provisions relate to those educational institutions, which are in the list of Grant-in-Aid of the State Government.
19. It is to be imbibed that under Section 10 of the enactment of 1989, the State Government has power to take over management of any recognised educational institution. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said enactment provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whenever, it appears to the State Government that the managing committee of any recognised institution has neglected to perform any of the duties assigned to it by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder or has failed to manage the institution properly and that it has become necessary in the public interest to take over the management of such institution, it may, after giving to such managing committee, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, take over such management and appoint an administrator, to exercise control over the assets of the institution and to run the institution for such period, as the State Government may, from time to time, fix. Similarly, under Section 12 of the enactment of 1989, annual statement of properties, containing a list of all immovable properties, belonging to, or possessed by such institution or in which, it has any other interest, with such particulars, as may be prescribed, is to be furnished, to such officer, as may be authorised by the Director of Education in this behalf, by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. These provisions apply only to those educational institutions, which are in the list of Grant-in-Aid. Section 14 of the said Act further provides that no recognised institution or its class or the teaching of any subject therein, shall be closed without a notice in writing to the Competent Authority. It shall have to be shown that adequate arrangements have been made for the continuance of teaching of the students for the entire remaining period of study for which the students had been admitted or for the refund of the remaining fees, if any, paid by the students.
20. The aforesaid discussion leads towards an inescapable conclusion that the petitioner recognised educational institutions, managed by private managements, are within the effective control of State Government and they are entitled to be excluded from the applicability of Central Act of 1952, as provided under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 and the deposit of contributory provident fund, in the State of Rajasthan, pertaining to recognised institutions, whether on the list of Grant-in-Aid or not, are to be governed within the statutory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the enactment of 1989, read with the rules framed under Chapter-VIII of the Rules of 1993. The order impugned dated 14.8.1997, being contrary to the mandatory provisions, contemplated under Section 16(2) of the enactment of 1989, deserves to be set aside and Rule 92, framed by State Government, also deserves to be declared ultra vires, being beyond its power, delegated by State Legislature, under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989.
21. The second limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, is based on the interpretation of Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993. Shri jain invited my attention to Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, which provides that the State Government may, by general or special order, exempt any institution or any class of institutions from any of the provisions of the rules, or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such institution or class of institutions, with such modifications and, or conditions, as may be specified in the orders. Shri Jain strenuously urged before me that the order impugned dated 14.8.1997, the validity of which is under challenge in these writ petitions, can be saved under the aforesaid statutory rules. According to Shri Jain, by the impugned order dated 14.8.1997, the State Government is legally authorised to exempt the recognised educational institutions, from the applicability of the enactment of 1989, under Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993.
22. The aforesaid argument of Shri Jain, is attractive, but fallacious. Reasons are not far to seek. In a democratic polity like ours, the constitution is the Will of the people, whereas any enactment, passed either by State Legislature or Parliament, is the Will of the representatives of the people. Will of the people cannot be allowed to be superseded by Will of the representatives of the people, by passing any enactment, either by State Legislature, or by Parliament, contravening the provisions of the Constitution. In nut-shell, Constitution cannot be allowed to be transgressed by any enactment, passed either by State Legislature, or by Parliament. Similarly, Will of the representatives of the people, expressed by an enactment passed either by State Legislature, or by Parliament, cannot be allowed to be superseded either by State Government, or by Union Government, by framing rules, contravening and transgressing the mandatory provisions of an enactment.
23. The basic question, involved in these cases, is as to whether the State Government has been authorised under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989, to frame Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993. The argument of the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5, Shri Narendra Jain, is that the State Government has been authorised under Section 43, to frame such a rule. The learned Counsel, however, failed to demonstrate before me as to how, within the meaning of Section 43, the State Government is authorised to frame Rule 92. Since, the framing of Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, is beyond the rule making power, delegated to the State Government, therefore, this rule is ultra vires to Section 16(2), read with Section 43 of the enactment of 1989.
24. It is to be noticed that State Legislature authorises State Government under Section 43 of the said Act, authorising it, to make rules, for purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the enactment of 1989, but by framing the aforesaid Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, the State Government seems to me, to be determined to defeat the purpose of the enactment of 1989. To my mind, Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993 has effect to nullify the statutory provisions of Section 16(2) of the enactment of 1989, which is legally impermissible. The aforesaid rule, framed by State Government, is also against the mandatory provision, contained under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989. I am of the view that Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, is not in consonance with Section 16(2) and Section 43 of the enactment of 1989, therefore, it deserves to be declared ultra vires.
25. Apart from the aforesaid provisions, I have also examined Clauses (a) to (1) of Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the enactment of 1989, and in all these provisions, State Legislature has not delegated power to State Government, to frame Rule 92, nullifying the provisions of enactment of 1989. In absence of any authorisation by State Legislature, to State Government, to frame Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, framing of the said rule by State Government, is not sustainable and it is hereby declared to be ultra vires to the statutory provision, contained under Section 16(2) of the enactment of 1989. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri Narendra Jain fails to demonstrate source from the enactment of 1989, from which, it can be inferred that State Government is empowered by State Legislature, to frame Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993.
26. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner educational institutions are not entitled to be exempted within the meaning of Section 16(1)(b) of the Central Act of 1952. He invited my attention to Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1993, which defines 'Non Government Educational Institution' and Rule 2(s), which defines 'Recognised Institution'. The learned Counsel, Shri Jain invited my attention to Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1993, towards the expression used 'neither owned nor managed by State or Central Government or by any university or local authority or any other authority, owned or controlled by the State or Central Government'. According to Shri Jain, Non-Government educational institutions under the aforesaid definition, would be only those, which are neither owned, nor managed by State or Central Government and these expressions are beyond the ambit of Section 16(1)(b) of the Central Act of 1952.
27. It is to be imbibed in this regard that when the definitions of non-governmental educational institution and recognised institution are already given under Section 2(p) and (q) of the enactment of 1989, then, it is not understandable, what prompted the State Government to re-define these expressions again under Rule 2(r) and 2(s) of the Rules of 1993. To my mind, it would have been sufficient if the rule making authority, i.e., State Government, would have said that the expressions defined under the enactment of 1989 will carry the same meaning under the Rules of 1993, framed by State Government.
28. Coming to the merit of aforesaid argument, raised by the learned Counsel, Shri Narendra Jain, it is to be noticed that in State of Rajasthan, there are four types of educational institutions:
(1) Those educational institutions, which are owned, controlled and managed by State Government, which are called Government educational institutions, and where the services of employees are at par with State Government employees;
(2) the second category of educational institutions in State of Rajasthan, are owned and controlled by State Government, but managed by universities, local authorities, or other authorities of the State.
(3) the third category of educational institutions are those, which are recognised institutions, but are being managed by private managements, registered under the Registration of Societies Act and are called Non-Government Educational Institutions; and
(4) there are fourth category of educational institutions, in State of Rajasthan, which are recognised by State Government, and are also on the list of Grant-in-Aid of State Government, but managed by private managements, registered under the Registration of Societies Act and are also called Non-Government Educational Institutions.
29. The definition Clauses (p) and (q), of Section 2 of the enactment of 1989 and Rule 2(r) and (s) of the Rules of 1993, are nothing, but repetition of definitions of 'Non-Government educational institution' and 'Recognised Institution', given under the enactment of 1989. Both State Legislature and State Government has used the words 'neither owned, nor managed by the State Government.' Here, in the present case, it is to be noticed that nowhere, it is said in the aforesaid definition clause of 'Non-Government Educational Institution' that they are neither owner nor managed, nor controlled by the State Government. It is true that in definition Clauses 2(p) and 2(q) of the enactment of 1989, if, in place of expression 'managed', the expression 'controlled' would have been used, only then, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, would require in-depth discussion, otherwise not. In my considered opinion, the expression 'managed', used under definition Clause (p) of Section 2 of the enactment of 1989, cannot be equated with the expression 'control of the Central Government, or State Government', used under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952. The expression 'managed' cannot be equated with the expression 'controlled' by Central or State Government, used under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952.
30. Some of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, urged before me that after transfer of accounts from Treasury/Sub-Treasury of the State Government, to the account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the latter has forcibly recovered excess contributory provident fund amounts, from the petitioner-institutions. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present cases, I hereby direct such petitioners, to make their representations before the Director, Local Fund Audit Department of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, R.C. Dave Marg, Bhawan Das Road, Jaipur, within six weeks from today, and the Director, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to such petitioner-institutions, shall pass speaking orders relating to forcible excess contributory fund, recovered from them, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur. Excess amount, if any, found by Director, local Fund Audit Department, is made refundable to such petitioner-institutions, with prior approval of the Finance Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
31. All the petitioner-institutions are hereby directed, to move applications, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, within six weeks from today, for obtaining cheques from his office, relating to contributory fund amounts, along with interest, accrued thereon throughout till the date of issuing of cheques, for the purpose of being paid in the personal deposit accounts of the petitioner-institutions, in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, under the enactment of 1989, read with rules framed thereunder, making the respondent No. 5, entitled to receive Rs. 5,000./- as administrative charges from each of the petitioner-institutions. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to issue a cheque, to all the petitioner-institutions, expeditiously, preferably, within four months from today. The petitioner-institutions are also hereby directed that after receipt of cheques, they are to deposit the cheques in their personal deposit accounts, in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, within the meaning of Section 16(2) of the enactment of 1989, read with Chapter-VIII of the Rules of 1993, within three days from the date of receipt of cheques from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
32. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, subject to observations made in the body of the order, all these writ petitions are allowed and the order impugned dated 14.8.1997 is set aside and Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, is hereby declared ultra vires to statutory provisions, contained under Section 16(2) and Section 43 of the enactment of 1989.
33. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cost is made easy.
34. After dictation of judgment, the members of the Bar, present in Court, made a request to mark the judgment 'reportable'. The request is allowed and the judgment is marked 'reportable'.