Judgment Prafulla C. Pant; C.J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought for quashing of order dated 03.07.2006 passed under Section 8F(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPFMP Act). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record and affidavits filed by the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner St. Anthony's College is a deficit grant-in-aid College having teaching and non-teaching staff of 150. It is stated in the writ petition that the college receives grant from the State Government regularly out of which full salary of the teaching staff against the sanctioned post is paid. It is further stated that fee of the students is fixed by the government and 60% of it is remitted to the Government. It is also stated that St. Anthony's College is covered under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme right from the beginning and Death-cum-Retirement Scheme of the Government of Meghalaya is also applicable to the employees as the institute is deficit grant-in-aid institution. The Contributory Provident Fund amount (for short CPF amount) is deposited and controlled by regulations applicable to it. It is pleaded that the petitioner's college is not covered under EPFMP Act. Though in the Writ Petition No. 139(SH)1998 filed by some employees, it has been held that it is the responsibility of the State to implement EPF Scheme for the employees, but said judgment appears to have been set aside vide order dated 07.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2001. The writ petitioner has not concealed the said fact rather mentioned about the same in para. 5 of the writ petition. Petitioner's case is that since the institution in question is under the control of the Government, being grand-in-aid, recovery letter of Rs. 2,86,30,828/- towards EPF dues for the period of 1982 to 1999 is illegal. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-Provident Fund Authorities under EPFMP Act have attached all Bank Accounts of the St. Anthony's College which is illegal. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2,86,30,828/- towards EPF dues for the period of 1982 to 1999 is illegal. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-Provident Fund Authorities under EPFMP Act have attached all Bank Accounts of the St. Anthony's College which is illegal. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it is stated that the petitioner's institution is covered under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and notice was issued to it on 15.09.1982 regarding implementation of the Contributory Provident Fund and Death-cum-Retirement Scheme of the Government of Meghalaya. Taking shelter of the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2001, it is stated that St. Anthony's College is the employer of the employees and not the State Government and, as such, all statutory liabilities are on it. It is further stated by the contesting respondents that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner under EPF and MP Act, 1952 to show if the assessment made by the answering respondents was incorrect but the petitioner failed to show any record to the effect that the assessment made against the petitioner was incorrect. Defending attachment of the Bank Account of the petitioner's college, it is stated that since the petitioner failed to make payment of the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,86,30,828/- for the period between March, 1982 to March, 1999 and, as such, the impugned order suffers from no illegality. 4. In additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal of the petitioner's college, it is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, tripartite meeting involving the State Government officials, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the representatives of College Principals was held on 20.11.2009 to discuss the social security benefit scheme to the colleges. Copy of the resolution passed in the said meeting is annexed as Annexure V to the additional affidavit. In the said meeting, the Government agreed to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) as corpus to MCEPRWS (Meghalaya College Employees Post Retirement Welfare Society) to be kept in fixed deposit to protect the interest of the employees. 5. As far as respondent No. 1 the State of Meghalaya is concerned, in para. In the said meeting, the Government agreed to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) as corpus to MCEPRWS (Meghalaya College Employees Post Retirement Welfare Society) to be kept in fixed deposit to protect the interest of the employees. 5. As far as respondent No. 1 the State of Meghalaya is concerned, in para. 4 of its counter affidavit, it has been stated that for teaching and non-teaching staff in State Government colleges, contributions are made under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, under Assam Government under Education Department Rules and Orders (Revised Edition) 1930 as amended vide order dated 18.05.1989 by the State of Meghalaya. Under said CPF Scheme, employees contribute 8% of their basic pay with a matching contribution of another 8% of basic to be borne by the Management Committee of the College, the share of the employer is released to the concerned colleges as component of salary grant accorded. Name of the present petitioner is shown at Serial No. 1 in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 1 which shows that contribution of Rs. 2,75,89,355/- has been made by the State Government under CPF Scheme. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that St. Anthony's College and other institutions were brought under Employees' Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. 1983 but fact remains that they were already under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, incorporated under Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1961. As such, the State Government has in its counter affidavit in substance supported the case of the writ petitioner. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the main ground on which the petitioner challenging the impugned recovery under EPF and MP Act is Section 16of said Act. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's college (St. Anthony's College) since under grant-in-aid of the State Government as pleaded in the writ petition and its employees are entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund, as such, it is exempted from the provisions of EPF and MP Act, 1952. 7. I have gone through the said provision of law. Section 16 of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads under:-- 16. 7. I have gone through the said provision of law. Section 16 of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads under:-- 16. Act not to apply to certain establishments.-- (1) this Act shall not apply-- (a) to any establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912(2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to co-operative societies, employing less than fifty persons and working without the aid of power; or (b) to any other 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; or (c) to any other establishment set up under any Central, Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits; ((2) If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the financial position of any class of (establishments) or other circumstances of the case, it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt (whether prospectively or retrospectively), that class of (establishments) from the operation of this Act for such period as may be specified in the notification.) 8. The issue raised before this Court during argument is that whether a college like St. Anthony's College which is run by a private management committee but under grant-in-aid of the Government on fulfilling certain conditions of the Government, is an establishment which is under the control of the State Government or not. The issue raised before this Court during argument is that whether a college like St. Anthony's College which is run by a private management committee but under grant-in-aid of the Government on fulfilling certain conditions of the Government, is an establishment which is under the control of the State Government or not. From Clause (a), Clause (b) and Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, it appears that 4(four) kinds of establishments are exempted to which the provisions of EPF and MP Act, 1952 are not applicable - (i) An establishment registered as Co-operative Society under any statute, with employees less than 50 and working without aided electricity; (ii) The establishments belonging to Central Government or State Government and whose employees' are entitled to benefit of Contributory Provident Fund or old age pension in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Government; (iii) Establishments which are under control of Central Government or State Government and whose employees are entitled to benefit of Contributory Provident Fund or old age pension in accordance with the scheme of such Government; (iv) Any other establishment set up under Central or State Act whose employees are entitled to benefits of Contributory Provident Fund or old age pension in accordance with the scheme framed under such Act. 9. The petitioner's contention is that it is an establishment under the control of State Government whose employees are entitled to benefit of Contributory Provident Fund. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 argued that an institute runs by Missionaries through management committee cannot be said to an institute controlled by the Government. In reply to this, Mrs. P.D.B. Baruah, counsel for the petitioner submitted that for taking grand-in-aid, a college has to surrender many of its powers and free functioning of the college whereby it gets under control of the Government. It is further argued that for every appointment made in the college, of the employees, the college has to obtain approval from the State Government authorities. Apart from this, from time to time State Government authorities impose restrictions in free working of the college, getting grand-in-aid. 11. Dictionary meaning of expression 'under the control' is unable to act freely, under restrain/check of, or of something being taken care of. Apart from this, from time to time State Government authorities impose restrictions in free working of the college, getting grand-in-aid. 11. Dictionary meaning of expression 'under the control' is unable to act freely, under restrain/check of, or of something being taken care of. As such, on the basis of the above plain meaning of the expression 'under the control', and what has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it can be said that the petitioner's college is under the control of the State Government as many of its powers stands curtailed by the State Government for providing grant-in-aid to the college. 12. In para. 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of Meghalaya has stated as under:-- 5. That St. Anthony's College is covered under the Contributory Provident Fund right from the beginning and the employees share for the Contributory Provident Fund is paid by the Government. St. Anthony's College, being a Deficit Grant-in-Aid Institutions, is covered by the Contributory Provident Fund and Death-cum-retirement Scheme from the Government of Meghalaya under the relevant Regulation now in force. As per Regulations dated 10.5.1989 the rate of the Contributory Provident Fund amount, the time at which an employee is brought under Contributory Provident Fund, the place where the Contributory Provident Fund is to be deposited, the norms for withdrawal from CPF, etc. are all controlled by these regulations. The College has scrupulously followed these norms, including the case of withdrawal by an employee, from a CPF account. St. Anthony's College along with other Educational Institutions are brought into Employees Provident Fund Scheme(EPF) w.e.f. 1983. The fact is that there already existed a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme incorporated under the Assam Aided College Rules, 1961 implemented by St. Anthony's College and all Deficit Colleges in the State which was later adopted as stated by the government of Meghalaya on 18.5.1989. At present the basic pay of all teaching staff would be much higher than the EPF Pensionable salary ceiling of Rs. 6,500/- and as such it is not correct to say that the State Government is yet to formulate the scheme in consonance with the provision of Section 17 of the APF and MP Act, 1952. 13. Not only this, in paras. 6,500/- and as such it is not correct to say that the State Government is yet to formulate the scheme in consonance with the provision of Section 17 of the APF and MP Act, 1952. 13. Not only this, in paras. 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 State of Meghalaya, following averments have been made: 6. The existence of a contributory Provident Fund Scheme incorporated under the "Assam aided college Employees Rules, 1961" implemented in all deficit colleges in the then Khasi Hills autonomous District under the composite State of Assam and later adopted by Government of Meghalaya vide OM No. EDN. 192/80/180 dated 18-5-1989, is not disputed. The Law therefore, contemplates exemption of the statutory scheme under conditions which the deficit colleges in Meghalaya broadly fulfill. 7. In view of this, the Respondents felt that this Court may pass an order because the said existing scheme is already in existence for the benefit of the employees of deficit colleges in general and the petitioner in particular. It is therefore, prayed that your Lordship be pleased to issue a Rule that since the State Government is already having an existing scheme which was in existence since Assam time for the benefit of the employees of the petitioner, an order may be passed by this Hon'ble Court and the matter be closed accordingly and/or to pass such other order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. 14. From the above averments made on behalf of the State Government and considering the meaning of expression 'under the control' as discussed above, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is exempted under Section 16 of EPF and MP Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.08.1988 i.e. the date when Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 in the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was inserted. The provision inserted is prospective. The petitioner has not shown any notification of exempting it retrospectively under Section 17 of the Act. 15. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kasargod Pandhuranga Mallya (1972) 4 SCC 600 : AIR 1972 SC 1248 and an attempt is made to say that the petitioner's college is not under control of the Government. 15. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kasargod Pandhuranga Mallya (1972) 4 SCC 600 : AIR 1972 SC 1248 and an attempt is made to say that the petitioner's college is not under control of the Government. I have gone through said case law. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has observed at the end of para. 6 as under: ...The word 'control' is synonymous with superintendence, management or authority to direct, restrict or regulate (See p. 442 of Words and Phrases (Vol. 9) Permanent Edition). Control is exercised by a superior authority in exercise of its supervisory power. Adjudication of disputes is a judicial or quasi-judicial function and it would, in our opinion, be unduly straining the meaning of the word 'control' to hold that it also covers the adjudication of disputes between a co-operative society and its members. There is a clear distinction between jurisdiction to decide a dispute which is a judicial power and the exercise of control which is an administrative power and it would be wrong to treat the two as identical or equate one with the other. 16. From the above quoted observations, it cannot be said that it helps in any way the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 against the petitioner. As far as the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2001 in State of Meghalaya and another v. Dr. B.J. Bhattacherjee and another decided on 07.12.2005, it relevant to mention here from the copy of judgment of said case that the present petitioner and respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were not impleaded as a party in the appeal for the best reasons known to the appellant of the said case. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is partly allowed. It is directed that no recovery shall be made in respect of any amount for the period after 01.08.1988 i.e. when Clause (b) was inserted in Sub-section (1) of Section 16 in the EPF and MP Act, 1952. However, the recovery in respect of the prior period is not interfered with. No order as to costs.