MAHAVEER METAL MANUFACTURING CO FALNA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows -

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on its business at Falna of manufacturing umbrella ribs, handles, sticks and accessories and it also owns a factory for that purpose. This concern was established on 1st January, 1955 after the coming into force of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the act ). A question arose whether the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed under section 5 thereof by the Central Government were applicable to the petitioner or not. THE Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide his letter No. FF/fl/miscellaneous/1/4/fact/60/10603 dated 16th November, 1961 (Ex. 1) wrote to the Labour Officer, Jodhpur, in reply to his letter No. 6276 dated 3-11-61 that the petitioner was not covered by the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. It is alleged that subsequently the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his letter dated 18th November, 1961 made certain enquiries from the petitioner to supply information regarding petitioner's business to which the petitioner replied that as the petitioner did not come within the purview of the Act or the Scheme framed thereunder, it was not essential to send the requisite information. THEreupon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his letter dated 16th November, 1962 took the view that the industry carried on by the petitioner fell within item No. 20 and of 25 Schedule 1 of the Act. THEreafter there was exchange of series of letters between the petitioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. THE petitioner then made an application under section 19a of the Act on 9th February, 1964 to the Central Government for its decision whether the industry carried on by the petitioner firm was governed by the provisions of the Act or not. On this on 2nd June 1964 the Under Secretary to the Government of India sent a letter to the petitioner firm to send its views in writing regarding the fact whether the establishment of the petitioner came under the term "electrical, mechanical or general engineering products". On this the petitioner made a detailed representation that the petitioner firm did not fall under that head. By its letter dated 5 9-1964, the Central Government finally decided that the establishment of the petitioner was a factory engaged in the scheduled industry "electrical, mechanical and general engineering products". After this decision, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner asked the petitioner to implement the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder from 31-12-1957. THE petitioner's case is that the said officer is threatening to take proceedings for his prosecution and for the recovery of the contributions to the fund with 25% penalty through coercive process, inspite of the fact that the petitioner is not an industry engaged in the manufacture of any of the items mentioned in Schedule 1 and that it is not manufacturing any electrical, mechanical or general engineering products. It is further stated that inspite of this, the petitioner was willing and ready to implement the scheme from 1-7-1962 and that the petitioner had conveyed its proposal to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in order to cut short the unpleasant controversy which was persisting between the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the petitioner, but the said officer did not accept the proposal. It is also submitted that the decision of the Central Government that the petitioner was covered by the provisions of the Act and the Scheme thereunder was conveyed to it by letter dated 5th September, 1964, and that it is only after this letter that the doubt regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder was removed and thereafter the petitioner had committed no default. It is therefore prayed that an order, direction or writ be issued against the respondents quashing the decision of the Central Government dated 5th September, 1964 and restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder against the petitioner.