(1.) This appeal, by the defendants, is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1976 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, in R.A. No. 342 of 1971 reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-8-1971 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, in O.S. No. 213 of 1967.
(2.) The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was not maintainable as no notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the -Code'), was issued ; that having regard to sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Employees. Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for Short, the 'Act'), the suit was not maintainable. In the appeal, the learned Civil Judge held that the suit, as against defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6, was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 of the Code was issued and the suit as against defendants 2 and 3 was maintainable, even though, the Provident Fund Commissioner purported to act in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 7 A of the Act, but in fact he acted outside the scope of the Act ; that no notice under section 80 of the Code, was necessary. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the plaintiff factory had employed less than 20 persons at the relevant point of time ; therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal as against defendants 2 and 3 and decreed the suit against the Provident Fund Commissioner and Provident Fund Inspector, and restrained them from enforcing the provisions of the Act.
(3.) Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that notice under Sec. 80 of the Code is necessary inasmuch as defendants 2 and 3 are public officers ; that the relief of permanent injunction as sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted as it amounts to and results in, preventing the public officers from enforcing vaild law ; that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was taken away by the provisions contained in Sec. 7A(4 of the Act.