When contacted, STES founder president Sunanda Navale told TOI on Friday: “We will have to study the order and decide with the institute heads regarding the issue. As of now, there has been no decision. As soon as we decide, it will be conveyed to all.”The STES, founded on July 31, 1996, runs a network of 48 academic institutions, including medical, engineering, and other professional degree course colleges, from seven campuses at Warje, Lonavala, Erandwane, Vadgaon, Kondhwa, and Narhe.The RPF commissioner clarified that the present proceeding, resulting in the direction to remit Rs120.9 crore, “squarely dealt with the issue of employees engaged through contractors and non-enrolled regular employees.”On May 9, 2018, the STES was held in default of remittance of contribution for the period of March 2014 to March 2016 to the extent of Rs14.92 crore in respect of its regular enrolled employees. It furthermore defaulted contributions for the period of April 2016 to Dec 2018 to the extent of Rs49.79 crore with respect to regular employees. However, the question of non-enrolled employees and those engaged through contractors was left open in both proceedings and has now been settled.The RPF commissioner received complaints from employees claiming non-enrollment and non-remittance of their provident fund. Later, in response to a proclamation regarding the issue, published in newspapers in Feb 2023, more employees approached with their complaints and the same were taken for hearing.Based on the records submitted by the STES and statements recorded, the EPFO assigned two enforcement officers to verify all claims, and the latter submitted their first report on June 30, 2022, and a supplementary report on Dec 14, 2022. These reports stated, among other things, that the respondent-society did not enroll 3,562 employees for the benefit of provident fund and defaulted in remittance of their PF. Another 394 employees engaged in the canteen were also defaulted, the reports stated.The STES argued, among other things, that the non-enrolled employees were excluded as their salaries were in excess of Rs15,000 and the EPF scheme did not require them to be made members of the EPF. That, their form 11 for such exclusion was also submitted, the society claimed. The RPF commissioner, however, found these form 11 as fabricated as they were filled in a proforma that did not exist at the time when the employees concerned were employed.The order stated, “The respondent has challenged the liability on the basis of legal submissions. No contestation has been made to the computations submitted by the inspecting team. In view of the same, the inspector’s reports dated 30.06.2022 and 14.12.2022 are admitted, and the contestation made thereto by the respondent is dismissed.”(With inputs from SwatiShindeGole)
