BOMBAY PRINTERS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the notice dated 1st of August 1985, issued to the Chairman of petitioner No. 1 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for Maharashtra and Goa calling upon petitioner No. 1 to remit the provident fund dues in respect of 11 employers who had already retired. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in publishing Sindhi daily and Weekly Newspaper under the name of Hindustan and Hinduvasi. Petitioner No. 1 company is a service-oriented company established with the object to serve national, social, educational and cultural aspects particularly in respect of Sindhi community. The present petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 were employed by petitioner No. 1 company and they retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. The amounts due towards their provident fund were also paid to them. However, after retirement these persons were allowed to work as per their convenience, subject to their health conditions in furtherance of the object of the company for which it was established. It appears that when the Inspector from respondent No. 2's office visited petitioner no. 1 company he found that though the aforesaid petitioners were working with petitioner No. 1 company after their retirement, petitioner No. 1 company has not remitted their provident fund dues and therefore, vide notice dated 1st of August, 1985, respondent No. 2 called upon petitioner No. 1 to remit the said dues in respect of the said employees from the dated of their reappointment.

(2.) MR. Advani, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the present petition is filed by petitioner No. 1 company along with its employees in respect of whom respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice. He contended that though all these employees had retired long back they were allowed to work on temporary basis subject to their health conditions and they used to work out of devotion towards the object of petitioner No. 1 company as per their convenience. He further contended that these petitioners have taken away their provident fund dues at the time of their retirement and, therefore there was no question of payment of any further provident fund dues to them for the work which they were doing out of devotion.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY Clause-8 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Section 5 of the employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1052, is specially meant in the cases of employees of newspapers. As per para 2 (f) of the said Clause-8 'excluded Employee' means an employee who, having been a member of the fund, has withdrawn the full amount of his accumulation in the fund, under Clause (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 69. Clause (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 69 of the scheme runs thus :