GULSHAN KHANDSARI UDYOG Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point raised by this and the companion writ petition is whether khandsari is sugar within the meaning of Sch. I to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The petitioner is a partnership concern and runs a khandsari unit in the district of Muzaffarnagar. It manufactures khandsari along with gur and rab. The petitioner unit was established in 1958, under a licence granted under the Factories Act to employ 100 labourers in its unit. In 1952, the employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, was enacted. The Act was a welfare legislation and was intended to provide for the institution of the provident fund for the employees of factories and other establishments. It applied to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Sch. I and in which twenty or more persons are employed. Section 4 empowered the Central Government to add to Sch. I any other industry in respect of the employees whereof it is of opinion, that a provident funds scheme should be framed under this Act, and thereupon the industry so added shall be deemed to be an industry specified in Sch. I for the purposes of this Act. Under S. 5 Central Government is to frame a scheme called the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident fund under the Act for the employees. The scheme is to provide for the class of employees who shall join the fund and the conditions for exemption, the time and the manner in which the contribution shall be made to the fund by the employers, the payment by the employers of such sums of money as is necessary to meet the cost of administering the fund and for their recovery, etc. Accordingly the Central Government framed the Employees' Provided Fund Scheme 1952. Section 19A gave power to the Central Government to remove difficulties, and provided that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, and in particular if any doubt arises as to

(2.) IN 1956 the Central Government by notification added sugar in Sch. I. Since then sugar was one of the industries to which the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme became applicable. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, called upon the petitioner firm to apply and implement the provident fund scheme for its employees. The Muzaffarnagar Gur and Khandsari Udyog Association took up the matter and made representation to the Central Government. It submitted that Khandsari units are not engaged in the manufacture of sugar and the Employees' Provident Funds Act will not be attracted to the khandsari industry. It mentioned various points in support of its views. It prayed that the whole matter be considered and reviewed in view of the grounds mentioned and enforcement of the provident fund scheme against the khandsari unit be withdrawn. It also prayed that pending the Government decision the application and implementation of the scheme be stayed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 23 November, 1963 informed the petitioner firm that the Government of India has decided that the scheme is applicable to factories engaged in the manufacture of khandsari also under the scheduled head "sugar." It requested the petitioner to implement the provisions of the scheme. The Commissioner sent reminder to the petitioner on 13 April, 1964. Thereupon the petitioner came to this Court for an adjudication of the question that khandsari is not sugar industry. Since 1956, the Employees' Provident Funds Act applies to sugar industries. The question is whether khandsari is included in sugar industries. When the Muzaffarnagar Gur and Khandsari Udyog Association represented that khandsari units are not included in the sugar industry, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner referred the matter to the Central Government for clarification. The Central Government decided that the Act applies to factories engaged in the manufacture of khandsari under the schedule head of sugar. In due course, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informed the association of the decision reached by the Central Government. This decision of the Central Government was presumably under S. 19A of the Act. The Government also informed the association to that effect.

(3.) IN Collector of Customs v. K. Ganga Setti [A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1319] question was as to the validity of an order of custom authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the tariff schedule as regards the imposition of duties. The Supreme Court ruled that it was primarily for the Import Control authorities to determine the head or entry in tariff schedule under which any particular commodity fell; but if in doing so, these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt, i.e., if the construction was perverse, then it was a case in which the Court was competent to interfere. In other words, if there were two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of the revenue was adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation in favour of the subject appealed to the Court as the better one to adopt. The case for the respondent authorities is all the more stronger in the present case, because the legislature has specifically appointed the Central Government for determining such a question. The area of adjudication in a Court under Art. 226 is in such circumstances still narrower. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab v. Shibu Metal Works [1965 - I L.L.J. 473], the Supreme Court ruled that the entries in the schedule occur in an Act which is intended to serve a beneficent purpose and if two views are reasonably possible, the Courts should prefer the view which helps the achievement of the object. If the words used in the entry are capable of a narrow or broad construction, each construction being reasonably possible, and it appears that the broad construction would help the furtherance of the object, then it would be necessary to prefer the said construction. The construction adopted by the respondents that khandsari is included in the entry of sugar does advance the object of the Act, and should, therefore, be preferred unless it is established to be perverse.