K GOPALAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted to provide for the institution of provident funds for employees .in factories and other establishments. The original Schedule I of the Act specified the various iadustries to which the Act applied from its inception. Section 4 of the Act enabled the Central Government by notification to include other industries in Schedule I from time to time and to apply the. provisions of the Act to them. All such notifications are required to be laid before Parliament after they are issued by section 4(2) of the Act. According to sub-section (3) of section I thereof, the Act applies to two kinds of establishments, namely :-

(2.) On 20th April 1963, the Central Government issued Notification G.S.R. 728 in exercise ot the powers conferred by clause (b) ot subsection (3) of section I of the Act extending the application of the ^ Act, inter (alia, to "companies, societies, associations, clubs or troupes which give any exhibition of acrobatic or other performances or both. in any arena circular or otherwise or perform or permit any other form of entertainment in any place, other than a theatre, and require payment for admission into such exhibition or entertainment as spectators or audience". The notification came into force from 31st May 1963. The Provident Fund Commissioners have construed the words "troupes which give any exhibition of acrobatic or other performances" in the above notification to include circus companies. Accordingly a notice dated 10th December, 1965 was sent to this petitioner by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur to comply with the provisions of the Act by deducting contributions to the Fund from the wages of the employees and by contributing equal amounts to the same and pay 'the combined amounts into the Fund. At that time, the circus of the petitioner was camping at Agra. A similar notice was sent by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Maharashtra to the petitioner in Civil Writ 764-D of 1966 on 5th April, 1966 because the circus of that petitioner was then camping at Bombay. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Kerala sent two notices on 5th January, 1966 and 21st July, 1967 to the petitioners in Civil Writ 1585 of 1967 and Civil Writ 372 of 1968 respectively. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh sent a notice on 5th March 1966 to the petitioner in Civil Writ 901-D of 1966.

(3.) The validity of the Notification No. GSR 728 dated 20th April. 1963 applying the Act to circuses has been challenged by all the petilioners mainly on the ground that section 1 (3) (b) of the Act gives unlettered discretion to the central Government to apply the Act to any establishment it pleases and is, therefore, ultra vires the legislative power conferred on Parliament by the Constitution. For, Parliament cannot delegate the enunciation of legislative policy to the Central Government, that being an essential legislative function to be per formed only by the Legislature. Enactment of section l(3)(b) amounts to excessive delegation of legislative policy to the Executive and was, therefore unconstitutional.