WIRE NETTING STORES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUNDS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been running a factory from 1947 onwards for the manufacture of wire-betting rolls, wire netting, wire gauge, wire cloth and jaali made from G. I. Wires of different sizes largely imparted from abroad. Respondent No. 1 is the Regional Provident Funds Commission (hereinafter called the Commissioner) who is to implement the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 framed by the Government under the Act (hereinafter called the Scheme). Section 1(3)(a) of the Act makes it applicable to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industr specified in Schedule I to the Act in which twenty or more persons are employed. Section 4 of the Act empowered the Central Government to add other industries to Schedule I. The importance of Schedule I lies in the fact that the application of the Act depends entirely on the particular industry being covered by an entry in the Schedule.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that the industry carried on by them is in the nature of a metal textile industry which is not covered by any entry in Schedule I. The only relevant entries are "industry engaged in the manufacuture of electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" and "industry engaged in the manufacture of textiles (made wholly or in part of cotton or wool or jute or silk, whether natural or artificial)." The petitioners' industry is not covered by the former entry because the indutrial activity carried on by the petitioners is not in the nature of an engineering industry. It is also not covered by the second entry inasmuch as it is confined only to certain kinds of textiles which do not include the metal textiles woven by the petitioners. Nevertheless, the Commissioner was of the view that the industry carried on by the petitioners was covered by the former entry relating to "electrical, mechanical or general engineering products." In the course of a long correspondence with the petitioners, Respondent No. 1 tried to persuade the petitioners to supply the relevant information to him so that after hearing the petitioners he may decide the question of the coverage of the factory of the petitioners by the Act and the Scheme. The petitioners, however, refused to supply the information on the ground that their factory was not covered by the Act and the Scheme. Ultimately, Respondent No. 1 advised the petitioners to apply to the Central government under Section 19-A of the Act if the petitioners had any doubt as to their factory being covered by the Act and the Scheme. The petitioners, therefore, represented to the Central Government under Section 19-A that their factory was not covered by the Act and the Scheme. Pending the decision of the Central Government, however, Respondent No. 1 called upon the petitioners to deposit provident fund contributions for the period from January 1965 to January 1967 amounting to Rs. 5,700 and Rs. 171 as administrative charges and penal damages at the rate of 25 per cent on these amounts by his order dated 10th August 1967 at Annexure A-18 of the writ petition. Subsequently, the Central Government passed the order under Section 19-A butwithout giving a personal hearing to the petitioners though they had made such a request. By this order, the Central Government expressed the opinion that the products manufactured by the petitioners were "general engineering products" and as such the petitioners' industry was covered by Schedule I of the Act and conveyed this to the petitioners by letter dated 16th January 1968 being Annexure A to the Civil Writ Petition No. 121 of 1968. The petitioners have challenged the validity of both the demand by the Commissioner and the opinion of the Central Government on the following grounds, namely:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.C. Misra did not press the other grounds such as the actual denial of opportunity by the Commissioner to show that the petitioners' industry is not covered by the Act and that the Commissioner was not entitled to recover the provident fund contributions from the petitioner prior to the impugned order.