SARJU BAI Vs. GANGO BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge felt there was a conflict of decisions on the construction and inter-action of Sections 3 (2) and 5 (1) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, and referred the appeal to a larger Bench. A Division Bench recommended that the case should more properly engage the attention of a Full Bench. That is how the appeal has been laid before this Bench.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel we feel that in view of the facts of the case, the controversy regarding the construction of Section 5 (1) does not really arise. But since the appeal itself has been referred to us for decision, we proceed to do so.

(3.) ONE Ganesh Singh was employed in the Central Railway as a fitter. He was posted at Jhansi. He was a contributor to the provident fund. He retired on 9th February, 1957, but before the provident fund could be repaid to him he died on 9th March, 1957. At his death a sum of Rs. 5,129,25 stood to his credit as the provident fund while a sum of Rs. 1,770 was payable as special contribution. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit No. 82 of 1958 for a declaration. They alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Gango Bai was the legally wedded wife of Ganesh Singh. The other plaintiffs were her sons and daughters by Ganesh Singh. Smt. Sarju Bai, defendant No. 1, had been employed as a maid servant by Ganesh Singh. Defendant No. 2, Bhagwan Singh, was born as a result of Ganesh Singh's illicit relationship with Smt. Sarju Bai. She was not his legally married wife nor was defendant No. 2 his son. The defendants were not entitled to any part of the provident fund. During his lifetime Ganesh Singh appears to have made a nomination in favour of Bhagwan Singh, defendant No. 2, in respect of his provident fund. On its strength the defendants were claiming that they were entitled to the entire sum standing to the credit of Ganesh Singh in his provident fund account including the special contribution. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the plaintiffs alone were entitled to it.