EVERSHINE METALS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is to quash an order of the respondent, the Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Madras, dated 12th September 1957, regarding the concern of the petitioner as a scheduled industry and calling upon it to remit the employer's share of contribution, full and double administrative charges at the prescribed per centage for the period from 1st November 1952 to 31st March 1955 besides penal damages at 61/2 per cent. per annum on the delayed remittance for the period. The petitioner is said to be a proprietary concern upto 31st March 1959 when it was converted into a partnership firm. The business which was started in 1948 consists of the manufacture of builder's hardware, parts and accessories in the nature of gate handles, door handles, coat hooks, soap trays, tooth paste trays etc. The petitioner admits that in 1952 and subsequently more than 50 workers have been employed and that with effect from the 1st April 1956 it had introduced the provident fund scheme for its workmen. According to the petitioner, the provident fund inspector, Madurai, and the respondent called for particulars and eventually decided that its concern is a scheduled industry and this opinion was concurred in by the Government of India under Section 19-A, Employee's provident Funds Act, 1932. When the petitioner specifically asked of the respondent how ha regarded the concern to be a scheduled industry, the respondent by his communication dated 15th February 1958 answered,

(2.) THE petitioner asks this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned order on two grounds: (1) that the petitioner's concern is not a scheduled industry and (2) that in any case, retrospective application of the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder and demand for the period from 1st November 1952 to 31st March 1956 are not warranted by the provisions of the Act and of the scheme framed thereunder. So far as the second point is concerned, it has to be answered in favour of the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 619 of 1959 (Mad) that such retrospective application of the provisions of the Act and of the scheme framed thereunder and demand for an earlier period, such as in the present case, could not be supported. That part of the order of the respondent demanding contribution, administrative charges, penal damages in respect thereof for the period already mentioned should be quashed.

(3.) THE first point involves consideration of the relative statutory provisions. Section 1 (3) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time makes its provisions applicable subject, of course, to those contained in Section 16 of every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry' specified in schedule I in which 50 or more persons are employed and to any other establishment employing 50 or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central government may by notification in the official gazette specify in this behalf. Power is given under Section 4 to the Central Government to add to Schedule I any other industry for the purpose of applying the Provident fund scheme. Section 6 relates to contributions and matters provided for in schemes. Schedule I takes in any industry engaged in the manufacture among other things of electrical, mechanical or general engineering products. An explanation follows :