V VENKATESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question is which arises for determination in this petition is whether is whether the petitioner working in the Head Office of respondent No. 3 is entitled to claim advantages of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") after the establishment covered by S. 1(3)(a) of the Act was closed.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute and before adverting to the question urged at the Bar, it would be desirable to set out the relevant facts. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 3 on March 3, 1965, as a stenographer. The respondent No. 3, M/s. Bose Investments (Pvt.) Limited, had only an office where about 10 employees were working and had no other business. On October 4, 1967, respondent No. 3 secured a factory from Alfa Rubber Company under an agreement of leave and licence. Rubber products were manufactured in the said company and 24 persons were employed in the said factory. On December 29, 1967, on the visit of the provident Fund Inspector, it was noticed that respondent No. 3 had an establishment which is a factory engaged in an industry specified in schedule I of the Act and in which twenty or more persons were employed. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 was called upon by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to register the establishment of respondent No. 3, an the same was covered by the provisions of the Act. In the view of the application of the Act, it was necessary for respondent No. 3 to make deduction from the salary of the petitioner and contribute it in the funds of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The factory taken over by respondent No. 3 was permanently closed on July 10, 1969, and, thereafter, respondent No. 3 ceased to make any deduction from the salary of the petitioner as, according to respondent No. 3, the petitioner and the employees working in the head office were no longer covered by the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner continued in the employment of respondent No. 3 till May, 1974, when his services were terminated. The petitioner instituted Suit No. 4349 of 1975, in the Bombay City Civil Court against respondent No. 3 for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,600 and for a declaration that the termination of services was illegal and he should be deemed to have continued in the services. The parties arrived at a settlement before the Bombay city Civil Court and on July 25, 1978, the consent terms were filed where by a decree for an amount of Rs. 12,500 was passed against respondent respondent No. 3. The petitioner accepted the said amount in full and final settlement of all his claims against respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was enquiring from respondent No. 2 about the amount of contribution which respondent No. 3 was required to make for the periods between July 10, 1969, and May, 1974, when the petitioner's services were terminated. The petitioner was claiming that till May, 1974, he was covered by the provision of the Act and that respondent No. 3 was bound to contribute and deposit the amounts with respondent No. 2. The petitioner did not receive a satisfactory answer to his demand and thereupon, instituted the present petition on June 27, 2979, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to hold an enquiry as contemplated under S. 7A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was not holding any enquiry to demand the amount due to the petitioner from respondent No. 3. The learned single Judge, before whom the petition was moved for admission, adjourned the hearing and directed respondent No. 2 to hold the requisite enquiry and pass appropriate orders. On September 29, 1979, respondent No. 2 passed an order holding that nothing was due from respondent No. 3 to the petitioner as the factory was closed from July 10, 1969, and the provision of the Act became inapplicable. The petitioner thereupon amended the petition and sought further reliefs to the effect that respondent No. 2 should be directed to reconsider his decisions and to award the amount of Rs. 13,660 to the petitioner from respondent No. 3. The petitioner was thereafter summarily rejected by the learned single judge but that order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal preferred by the petitioner and the proceedings are remitted for disposal on merits. Accordingly, the petition is set down before me for hearing.