PIOMA INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by M/s Pioma Industries against Union of India and others being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on April 2, 1996 in Special Civil Application No. 9618 of 1993.

(2.) The appellants were the original petitioners. They filed the above petition for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated July 7, 1993 passed by the Central Government under Section 19 -A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Act''). The case of the appellants was that Pioma Industries and Imperial Soda Factory ("PIISF'') was an association of persons. It carried on business of manufacturing Rasna Soda Drink Concentrates (RSDC) at Asarva, Ahmedabad. PIISF was provisionally ordered to be covered under the provisions of the Act with effect from February 1978 as falling within the description "aerated water, soft drinks and carbonated water'' in the First Schedule to the Act and was assigned Code No. GJ/2916. According to the appellants, however, PIISF closed down its business in or around April 1964. Pioma Industries (appellants) is a proprietary concern of Khambhata Family Trust and is not continuation of or connected with PIISF.

(3.) The appellants manufacture Rasna Soft Drink Concentrates (RSDC) which are not "soft drinks or carbonated water or aerated water''. By a communication dated October 27, 1989, the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent No. 2 informed the appellants that the appellants' establishment at Kalol started manufacturing process in February 1984 and was covered under the Act with effect from August 1, 1988 as the appellant -industry was covered by Schedule 1 to the Act under entry "aerated water, soft drink or carbonated water''. According to the appellants, the communication was issued in misconception of the provisions of the Act. The appellants attempted to convince respondent No. 2 that the appellants' industry was not covered under the First Schedule, but there was no favourable response. The appellants, therefore, made a representation to the Central Government under Section 19 -A of the Act. Respondent No. 2, however, insisted and proceeded further in pursuance of the communication. The appellants were, therefore, constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 4735 of 1990. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated November 20, 1992 directed the Central Government to decide the appellant -petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a stipulated period.