ARAVINDADEVI J Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the sole proprietrix of the establishment styled Murugan Transport. According to the petitioner, the business earlier was done by her father-in-law and after his death she became the sole proprietrix of the said business. She has changed the name of the business of Murugan Transport from Murugan Service, in which name her father-in-law was carrying on the business and he gave the said business to her mother-in-law and the mother-in-law closed the business and there is only one business in the name and style, Murugan Transport carried on by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the employees of Murugan Service were covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "provident Funds Act"), and on account of nationalisation of bus routes the petitioner was left with only one bus route with two drivers and two conductors and there are no other employees. Since the number of persons were reduced to four, the petitioner made an application under Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act to the first respondent, claiming exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act to the said establishment. The petitioner's husband who was running the Murugan Roadways also submitted a similar application seeking exemption. The first respondent by his order, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act provide for grant of exemption to class of establishments and not to an individual establishment and hence, the request of the petitioner could not be granted.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the, first respondent on the ground that the view of the first respondent is erroneous as the power to grant exemption under Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act is not confined to class of establishments, but it is also available to an individual establishment as well.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that the power to grant exemption under Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act is restricted only to a class of establishments and not to an individual establishment. According to the respondents, it is not open to the respondents to grant exemption to an individual establishment invoking the provisions of Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act, and the case of the petitioner that individual establishment is also entitled to exemption under Section 16 (2) of the Provident Funds Act is not sustainable in law.