RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these revision petitions was convicted in three cases of offences under S.14(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, and Para.76(c) and (e) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in each case. The substance of the charge against him was that he failed or refused to submit returns or statements required, by the scheme. The three cases were for such failure in respect of three periods, July to September 1961, October to December 1961, and January to March 1962. The case for the Prosecution was that the petitioner owned an establishment consisting of Anand Bhavan Hotel, Anand Bhavan Boarding and Lodging and Hotel Brinda, all at Palghat, employing more than 20 persons and that he was bound to submit the returns under the Act. His defence was that the three hotels formed different units and that 20 persons were not employed in any one of these places, that even if the three be deemed one establishment, the number of employees reached the figure 20 only after Hotel Brinda was opened on 15-1-1959, that he was not bound to submit such returns for a period of five years from 15-1-1959 and that this being a case in which a doubt existed about the applicability of the Act, the prosecutions would not lie until the doubt was cleared by an order of the Central Government under S.19A of the Act. The learned Magistrate held against the petitioner on all these points and convicted him as stated above. The criminal revision petitions have been filed against the judgments in C. C. Nos. 340, 342 and 341 of 1962 respectively.

(2.) We will deal with the third point first. This is based on S.19A of the Act, which is extracted below

(3.) This point is raised on the strength of the decision of our learned brother, Vaidialingam, J., in Dhanalakshmi Weaving Work & others v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum ( 1963 KLJ 885 ) where it was held that when a doubt exists regarding any or all of the matters referred to in S.19A, the provisions of the Act cannot be enforced in the absence of a decision of those points by the Central Government. Though a different view was taken by a Division Bench consisting of Anna Chandy and Govinda Menon, JJ., in a later case, Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam v. Auto Transport Union (P) Ltd. 1964 KLT 42 it was urged that the earlier decision was not considered by the Division Bench and that the position had therefore to be examined afresh. We may observe that the earlier decision of Vaidialingam, J. is mainly based on a decision of Rajagopalan, J., in Annamalai Mudaliar & Bros v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ( AIR 1955 Mad. 387 ) which was overruled by a Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s. Fast India Industries (Madras) Private Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras ( AIR 1964 Mad. 371 ). After referring to the decision reported in AIR 1955 Mad. 387. It was held: