HARSHADKUMAR M PATEL Vs. K C D GANGWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 15-11-1984 and 16-6-1983 respectively. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Harshadkumar M. Patel is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the power of attorney of petitioner No. 1 firm. The petitioner No. 1 firm is carrying on activities of trading in diamond and precious stones in room No. 23, "Modeshwari Bhavan" since 1-4-1976. They have also got registration under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 with effect from 29-7-1980. In the said Modeshwari Bhavan there are other tenants and out of these tenants, 22 tenants are diamond cutters and polishers and they are carrying on their business of diamond cutting and polishing in their respective premises. The Inspector of respondent No. 2 made a report to respondent No. 2 claiming therein that these 22 diamond cutters and polishers are employees of the petitioner No. 1 and that the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are applicable to the petitioner No. 1. After the said report, the respondent No. 2 issued an order under Sec. 7-A of the said Act informing the petitioner No. 1 that provisions of the said Act are applicable to the said firm and that the said firm was allotted Licence No. GJ/12049 and that they should start making contribution under the said Act as well as the scheme under the said Act from May 1980 and comply with the said order. The petitioner No. 1 thereupon made a report claiming therein that those 22 diamond cutters and polishers are independent and individual businessmen and that the petitioner No. 1 firm had no concern with the same. The employees of the said 22 units could not be said to be employees of the petitioner No.1 firm and the action taken against them under the said Act was improper and ill-founded and therefore, the same should be revoked. But the said representation was turned down by respondent No. 2 by passing an order dated 16-6-1983.

(2.) It seems that thereafter the present petitioner No. 1 had filed a writ petition in this Court being S.C.A. No. 3465 of 1983. Said petition was disposed of on 26-7-1983 with observations that the petitioners were to make a detailed representation to the respondent No. 1 who would consider the same on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly the petitioners made a representation before the respondent No. 1 to revoke the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 16-6-1983 and to set aside and quash the action taken by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the said Act, against the petitioner No. 1. But unfortunately for the petitioners, said representation made by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent No. 1 was not accepted and the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 by his order dated 15-11-1984 confirming the order passed by the respondent No. 2. Consequently the petitioners have come before this Court.

(3.) It is true that the action taken against the present petitioner No. 1 is an action under the provisions of the said Act. The provisions of the said Act are benevolent provisions enacted in order of benefit the workers. In the case of Sayaji Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 610, the following principles are laid down : "Provident Fund Act is a beneficent statute which should be construed so as to advance the object with which it is passed. Any construction which would facilitate evasion of the provisions of the Act should as far as possible be avoided. Section 16 of the Act, being a clause granting exemption to the employer from the liability to make contribution, should receive a strict construction". Therefore, bearing this aspect should be kept in mind I proceed to consider the various contentions raised before me.