POPULAR ELECTRIC WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Popular Electric Works is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, with its registered office at 19, Municipal Market Connaught Circus, New Delhi It is claimed that the firm is exclusively engaged in 'building and construction industry and its sole activity is to carry out electrical installation work in Government and semi-government buildings under construction. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, an authority under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, sought to apply the Act to the said firm and also to other firms which carry on business of a more or less similar character. This has led to the present Writ Petition which is Civil Writ Petition No. 290 D of 1965. The first petitioner is the aforementioned firm, M/s. Popular Electric Works, and the second petitioner is an Association of Electrical Contractors, which is a registered trade organisation having as its members various electrical contractors carrying on business similar to the first petitioner There are four other Writ Petitions, which are numbered, Civil Writ Petitions Nos 289-D,291-D,292-Dand293.Dofl965,in which the first petitioner are firms similar to M/s. Popular Electrical Works and the second Petitioner is the Association of Electrical Contractors. This judgment will also govern those petitions because they involve exactly the same points as the present case.

(2.) The Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 was enacted by Parliament in 1952 and provided that the Act shall apply to certain establishments mentioned in Section 1(3). This Section has two subclauses (a) and (b) which provide that the Act shall apply :-

(3.) The regional Provident Fond Commissioner wrote to the Petitioner No. I on l6th December, 1964, that its establishment came in the category of Engineers and Engineering contractors, and hence the Act and the Scheme applied to it with effect from November, 1964. This position was contested by the first petitioner on the ground that theo firm was exclusively engaged in the building and construction industry. The second petitioner, which is an Association of Electrical Contractors also took up this matter and wrote to the Regional Provident Find Commissioner on 6tb January, 1965 staling that the workers employed by firms like the first petitioner were engaged purely on construction work and the length and terms of employment of the workers employed depended on the type of work required in any particular contract. The case of the Association apparently was that electrical contractors did not have permanent employees, but employees whose work depended on the nature of the contract secured and, hence the application of the Employees' Provident Funds Act was not practicable. A copy of the letter was send to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. The view of the Association was not accepted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The members of the Association also sought an interview with the Central Provident Fund Commissioner respondent No 2. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner apparently did not accept the contentions of the petitioner and insisted that the act was applicable to the first petitioner and the Scheme of the Provident Fund Act, 1952 should be implemented and contributions should be made failing which action would be taken. This led to the institution of the present Writ Petition.