STATE OF U P Vs. JAG RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the State for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, is laid before us in accordance with the orders of the Bench by which it was heard. The opposite party was tried before a Magistrate for the offence of Section 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act read with para 76 of the Provident Fund Scheme. The Magistrate convicted him, but cm appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted him. The State preferred an appeal from the acquittal which was dismissed by our brothers, Vishnu Datta Bhargava and Takru. The question raised in the appeal before them was of the effect of the number of workmen employed in a factory falling below iifty after the scheme had come into force. It was held by them that after the number of workmen employed in a factory by the opposite party fell below fifty, he was not bound to implement the scheme and could not be convicted under Section 14(2) of the Act. The State wants a certificate under Article 134(1) (c) on the ground that the question of law decided by our learned brothers is of sufficient importance to justify its being raised before the Supreme Court.

(2.) Article 134(1) of the Constitution is as follows:

(3.) The question whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Article 134 or not is within the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; a High Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide this question. In fact a certificate granted by the High; Court does not bind the Supreme Court and their Lordships can in a proper case hold that the certificate should not have been granted by the High Court. All that the High Court has to do is to prima facie satisfy itself that the order sought to be appealed from is one contemplated by the first clause of Article 134 and then to see whether it also answers the requirements of Sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) of Article 134(1). If the order sought to be appealed from is not a judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding, the High Court cannot grant a certificate under Clause (c) of Article 134(1) however erroneous the judgment may be. A High Court does not come into the picture at all when an appeal is filed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) but it does when an appeal is to be filed under Clause (e) because an appeal cannot be filed unless the High Court grants a certificate of fitness for appeal which the High Court can only do if it is satisfied not only with regard to the merits of the appeal but also with regard to the fact that it is one of the orders contemplated by Article 134(1).