RAJ NARAIN AGGARWAL Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the relevant authorities under the Employees Provident Fund Act from enforcing and applying the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Scheme framed thereunder to the petitioners undertakings, namely, the ice factory and the cold storage at Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and to quash whatever notices, letters or orders have been issued informing the petitioner that the said undertakings are so covered under the Act and the Scheme or threatening further proceedings in pursuance of the same with a view to recover the employer's contribution under the said Act including the launching of penal action in case of failure to comply with the same etc.

(2.) It is common ground that an ice factory did not come prior to 1969. within the mischief of Section 1 (3) (a) of the Act. The Act is applicable to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more persons arc employed: clause (b) thereof makes the Act applicable to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. It is stated tor the petitioner that subsequent to the Notification bringing the ice factory also under Schedule I and Section 1 (3) (a) of the Act he is paying the employer's contribution.

(3.) What falls for decision in this Writ Petition, therefore, is the period prior to the ice factory having been so notified as to brine it under Schedule I of the Act. Despite the allegation to the conirary in the affidavit of Shri R. R. Sahae, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 15-11-1967, filed in opposition to this Writ Petition, that the bominant business of the petitioner was that of running the cold storage and that it was for the purpose of the cold storage that the petitioner runs the ice factory to feed the cold storage, it was seen, when the relevant files were produced, that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Shri K. S. Sethi) had reported (vide his letter No. E/DL-910/62-63/5209, dated 14-2-64) to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner that "it appears that dominant activity of the establishment is the manufacture of ice and it was registered as such as factory on the date of coverage." Though reference has been made to this aspect, which seems crucial, even at the outset, I shall revert to this toward the end.