MAJESTIC TRADING HOUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN addition to the points decided by us in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18568 of 1987, Shakti Theatre v. Union of INdia and others, learned counsel for the petitioners has further challenged the validity of the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 25-7-1978 holding that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 correctly applied to the petitioners' establishment.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner was that the cinema business was separate and distinct from petrol pump. Consequently, the two businesses could not be lumped up together for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Employes' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel also urged that the Employees Provident Funds Act was applied from 30-4-1986 by making it effective from 1-10-1984. By taking three businesses together, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the petitioner had more than twenty employees and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to give contribution for all the employees under the Act. THE Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, admittedly did not apply in 1969. It was by virtue of Section 24 of the Cine-Workers and Cinema THEatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 which was brought into force from 24-12-1981 that the Employees' Provident Funds Act, became applicable to the petitioner's establishment. For applying the Employees' Provident Funds Act, the Central Government issued a notification on 30-4-1986, making it effective from 1-10-1984. Before this date, the Employees' Provident Funds Act did not apply to cinemas. THE Regional Provident Fund Commissioner committed an error in applying the said Act to cinemas by taking the three businesses of the petitioner, i. e. Majestic Talkies, Pushpraj Cinema and Petrol Pump together.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY we direct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to decide the controversy by taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Company v. Their Workmen, (1959-60) 17 FJR 166, and Gujshem Distrillers India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1985) 2 Lab. I. C. page 1714.