G V JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner G. V. Joshi, who is a medical practitioner, is running a medical clinic called the "City Clinic" at Hubli. At an inspection of the said establishment by an officer under the Employees' Provident Funds Act. 1952, it was found that there were twenty employees working in that establishment on the 1st of April 1965. A notice was, therefore, issued to him on 28-7-1966 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysore, intimating that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the scheme framed thereunder would be applicable to his establishment with effect from 1-4-1965, that as his establishment came within the description of what is called 'discovered establishment' under the relevant rules, he need not collect for the period 1-4-1965, to 30-6-1966 the employees' portion of the contribution to the provident fund, and that for the said period, however, he should make payment of the employer's portion of the contribution as well as administrative charges. By the said notice he was also called upon to furnish necessary returns for the period commencing from 1-7-1966. The petitioner contested the legality of the notice and claimed that his establishment could not be brought within the scope of the statute. Relying upon a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he contended that the provisions of the Act could not be applied to any establishment unless the required number of twenty employees are in continuous service for a period of at least one year. The authorities functioning under the Act were, however, not willing to accept the said legal position.

(2.) Hence, this writ petition in which the petitioner prays for an order quashing the notice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysore dated 28-7-1966 mentioned above as well as subsequent endorsements by him dated 21-9-1966 and 3-10-1966 addressed in furtherance of original notice dated 28-7-1966.

(3.) Upon facts there is no dispute whatever. The petitioner states and the respondents do not contest that during the months of January to March, May to August and November and December of 1965 there were actually working in the petitioner's establishment only nineteen employees. During the month of April 1965 the petitioner had engaged the services of one additional employee on what he describes as trial basis. His services were not continued after the end of April. Similarly one additional employee was taken on trial basis by the petitioner and he worked during the months of September and October 1965. It follows, therefore that during the months of April, September and October the petitioner's establishment did employ twenty employees.