Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 597 (MP)

Miss Hill Education Society v. State of M. P.

2025-09-19

AMIT SETH

body2025
ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner had filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the demand notice dated 17.1.2012 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to deposit the balance of Rs.22,168/- towards the Labour Welfare Fund. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-society, which is running a private school, does not fall within the definition of "establishment" as provided under the M.P. Shram Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982 and therefore, is not required to deposit any amount towards the Labour Welfare Fund. He contends that imparting education to the children cannot be equated with carrying on any business or trade or any work in connection therewith or ancillary thereto. It is further urged that the requirement of employing more than nine persons on any working day during the preceding twelve months is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the issue raised in the instant writ petition already stands answered by a coordinate bench of this Court in a reported judgment namely Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Gwalior v. State of M.P. and ors, 2010(3)MPLJ 77 wherein, the arguments sought to be advanced in the present writ petition stands answered against the petitioner. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgment in Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Gwalior (supra) has not yet attained finality and is under challenge in W.A. No.181/2010. However, he fairly submits that there is no stay granted in the said appeal and the same is still pending. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere pendency of an appeal would not affect the binding nature of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench, which continues to operate as a precedent binding on this Court. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. The facts of the case of Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Gwalior (supra) relied upon by the respondents, pertained to a school named as Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Phalka Bazar, Lashkar Gwalior, which disputed the applicability of the Act of 1982 on the ground that the same is a minority institution not liable to pay contribution in accordance with section 9 of the Act of 1982, as it is not an "establishment" defined under the Act and its operation could not be termed as "business". The relevant operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:- 12. From the aforesaid principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is clear that the word 'business' has no definite meaning. It is a word of wide meaning and its perceptions differ from private to public sector. Even non-profitable activities could be included in the word 'business'. In the present case, the petitioner - institution has employed teaching staff and other non-teaching staff, namely, Peon, Chowkidar, Security Guards, Sweepers and other Class IV employees and it has been imparting education to the children. It is charging monthly tuition fees from the children and it has also been paying salary to its staff members. The petitioner has not produced any Profit and Loss account to establish that it is a non-profitable institution. It is paying regular salary to its staff members and staff members are dependent over the salary for their livelihood. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner - institution has been carrying a 'business'. Hence, it is governed under the provisions of the Act of 1982 as per the notification dated 4.5.1995, copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-1. 13. Consequently, the petitioner - institution is liable to pay contribution as per the provisions of the Act of 1982. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts of the case, no order as to cost." 9. 13. Consequently, the petitioner - institution is liable to pay contribution as per the provisions of the Act of 1982. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts of the case, no order as to cost." 9. When the facts of the instant case are examined in the light of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Gwalior (supra), it is seen that the petitioner herein is also running a school and has employed teaching staff and non-teaching staff. It is charging monthly tuition fees from the children and it has also been paying salary to its staff members. The petitioner herein has also not produced any Profit and Loss account to establish that it is a non-profitable institution. It is thus carrying on a "business" and therefore, governed by the Act of 1982. The case of the petitioner, therefore being squarely covered with the judgment of this Court in the case of Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Gwalior (supra), is hereby dismissed in the same terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.