(1.) The petitioner in WP.No.180 of 1968 N. S. Rajendra is the owner of a coffee estate known as Tampa Estate'. The petitioner in WP.No.212 of 1968 N. S. Narasimhan is the owner of a coffee estate called 'Durga Estate' and the petitioner in WP. No.214 of 1968 N. S. Mohan is the owner of a coffee estate called 'Annapoorna Estate'. All the three estates are situated in Chettalli village in Coorg District. On 9-8-1967, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore (Respondent) issued separate notices to each of these petitioners bringing to their notice the fact that their estates had been brought under the purview of the Employyees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, hereinafter called 'the Act' from 1-10- 1966 as each of the establishments had employed 20 persons including temporary, casual and contract labour during the preceding month and found to be engaged in the coffee plantations. They were further informed of the allotment of a Code Number and were called upon to pay Provident Fund contributions from 1-10-1966. N.S.Shambiah, the father of the petitioners sent a common reply contending that each of the said Estates employed less than 19 workmen and therefore the Act is not applicable. Respondent by his letter dt.18-9-1967 replied stating that the estates of the petitioners were rightly brought under the purview of the Act and further he stated that 'if the employment strength of the establishment reaches 20 on any day in the year, the estate becomes liable ior coverage provided it satisfies other conditions stipulated under S.1, (3) (b) of the Act'. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to comply with the provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme immediately to avoid legal proceedings. Thereupon they preferred the above writ petitions seeking relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. Their contentions are common. The main ground urged is that the Act and the scheme thereunder cannot be applied to an estate or establishment unless 20 or more persons are permanently employed.
(2.) Until recently there was a conllict of views on the scope of S.1(3) (b) of the Act. This Court and the High Court of Madras had taken the view that employment of 20 persons even for a single day would bring the establishment in question within the purview of the Act. Vide G.V.Joshi v. State of Mysore, (1969) 1 Mys.L.J. 528 and East India Industries (Madras) P. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, AIR 1964 Mad 371.
(3.) The Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a contrary view viz., that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to establishments which did not employ 20 and more persons to work therein for a period of one year and that 'casual labour' falls outside the scope of S.1(3) .