CHHOTALAL MORARJI DHAMI Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been heard together because they raise a common question of law as to the applicability of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the propriety of the action taken by the authorities functioning under the said Statute to apply the same, to the Establishments run by the petitioners in these four cases.

(2.) We shall deal in detail with the facts of and points of law raised in the first of the petitions W. P. No. 362/1966 because a decision thereon will govern the other three cases also.

(3.) The petitioner describes himself as the proprietor of a Cardamom Factory. According to his case, his establishment is only a factory within the definition of the term contained in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. But, because the industry in which it is engaged is not one of the industries enumerated in Schedule I of the Act, it is not possible to apply the provisions of the Act. The stand taken up by the 1st respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, is that the petitioner's Establishment comes within the description of a trading and commercial establishment falling within the category to which the Statute has been made applicable by a Notification of the Government issued pursuant to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. The answer to this contention of the respondent on behalf of the petitioners is that the Notification itself is ultra vires of the powers of the Government or is liable to be struck down as one made in excess of the power conferred by the Statute.