TSADASHIVIAH Vs. DMAHADEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true scope of S. 1(3)(a) of the Employee's Provident Funds Act ( which we shall herein after refer to as the "Act") comes up for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) The fact are not in dispute in this case:

(3.) The accused is the Proprietor of Chandiram Mysore Silk Mills in Bangalore City. He was running the Mills in question when the Act came into force and at that time he was employing more than 50 persons in his Mills. Therefore, he was required to contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund ( to be referred to as "Fund" herein after) and he contributed to that Fund till 1-2-1956. Thereafter he failed to contribute to the Fund. In the present case, the charge, against him is that he failed to contribute to the fund from 1-6-1956 to 1-8-1956 and failed to submit necessary returns and therefore he is liable to be punished under Paragraph 76 (a) and (C) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The accused has not denied the fact that he had failed to contribute to the Fund, during the period mentioned in the charge.