CEMINDIA COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BACHUBHAI N RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 8-7-1985 in Misc. Petn. No. 488 of 1968* on the file of the High Court of Bombay holding that the appellant was bound to comply with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the scheme thereunder and to make contributions in respect of its employees working in its workshop at Antop Hill, Wadala in Bombay.

(2.) The appellant is a company which is carrying on business as "engineers and engineering contractors" and is engaged in building and construction industry. By the Notification bearing No. GSR 1398 published in the Gazette of India dated 26-9-1964 (Part II, Section 3(i), page 1546) issued under S. 1(3)(b) of the Act, the Act was extended to establishments of engineers and engineering contractors not being exclusively engaged in building and construction industry. By the notice dated 11th October, 1967 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Bombay called upon the appellant-company to show cause why it should not be directed to comply with the Act in respect of the workmen employed at its workshop at Antop Hill, Wadala in Bombay. The appellant submitted its representation on 13th October, 1967 claiming that the Act was not applicable to it since the appellant was exclusively engaged in building and construction industry and the workshop in question had been set up only the purpose of carrying out work ancillary to the building and construction industry in which it was engaged and that the appellant was not carrying on any work for others at the said workshop. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner negatived the contention of the appellant and directed that the appellant should make contributions with effect from 1st December, 1963 in accordance with the scheme framed under the Act in respect of the workmen employed at its workshop who were just 70 or 80 in number while the total working force of the appellant in its building and construction industry was in the order of 2,000. The appellant had established another workshop for its own purpose at Calcutta. On being served with a similar demand it had filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 614 of 1967 in the Calcutta High Court contending that the Act did not apply to such an establishment. In view of the above writ petition which was pending on the file of the Calcutta High Court, the appellant represented to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay to stay further action under the Act till the disposal of the writ petition filed in the Calcutta High Court. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner rejected the said request of the appellant and directed it to comply with the demand already made in respect of the workshop at Bombay. After some correspondence, the appellant filed Misc. Petn. No. 488 of 1968* on the file of the High Court of Bombay, out of which this appeal by special leave arises, questioning the validity of the notice issued to it calling upon it to comply with the provisions of the Act and the scheme made thereunder in respect of its workshop at Bombay.

(3.) It should be stated at this stage that the writ petition filed before the Calcutta High Court was allowed and the notice issued to the appellant to comply with the Act and the scheme made thereunder in respect of the workshop at Calcutta was quashed by the judgment of the High Court dated January 6, 1970 and that judgment has become final. When the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises was taken up for hearing by the High Court of Bombay, it was brought to the notice of the High Court of Bombay that a similar notice issued in respect of the workshop at Calcutta had been quashed and a similar order should be passed on the petition before the Bombay High Court also. The High Court of Bombay declined to follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court and proceeded to pass the judgment upholding the demand made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Bombay, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.