PFIZER EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Appeals the same order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court is challenged, therefore, all these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN Appeal No.378 of 1995, order passed in Writ Petition No.1946 of 1993 has been challenged. That Petition was filed by the Trade union of the employees working in Pfizer India Ltd., the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition. In that Writ Petition order dated 4th March, 1993 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (herein after referred to R.P.F.C.) was challenged.

(3.) PRINCIPAL challenges in the Writ Petitions were that the Commissioner can not impose any condition on the employer while considering the application of the individual employee under paragraph 27 of the scheme and the Commissioner can not reject an application made by the individual employee for seeking exemption from the scheme, because the employer is not willing to accept the conditions which the Commissioner wants to impose on the employer. It was also the contention of the Petitioners that the Commissioner is seeking to impose conditions on the employer when the application is by an employee. It is not possible for an individual employee to force the employer to accept these conditions and therefore an employee who made an application under paragraph 27 was being asked by the Commissioner to do the impossible. With the result the very remedy provided by the statutory scheme to individual employee to seek exemption from the scheme was being denied. It was also the contention of the Petitioner that in terms of the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act an exemption granted under sub section (2) of Section 17 can be withdrawn or cancelled only for failure to comply with the provisions of sub rule (3) of Section 17 and an exemption already granted can not be withdrawn or cancelled because the employer refuses to abide by or accept by any additional conditions. All these Petitions were decided by a common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 15th March, 1995 . The learned single Judge dismissed all the Petitions. The learned single Judge held by referring to the definition of the term "exempted establishment" and "exempted employee" in Section 2 (ff) and Section 2 ( fff ) that whether an exemption is given to establishment or to employee it results by legal fiction into an exempted establishment as defined under Section 2 ( fff ) and that both these exemptions are treated as one in effect and for the purpose of the Act. The learned single Judge also held that individual employee or class of employees can seek exemption as a matter of privilege and not as a matter of right and therefore the Commissioner is entitled to impose such conditions as he deems fit. The learned single Judge further held that the entire scheme of the Act deals with the liability and responsibility of employer in relation to any establishment to which the statutory scheme applies. It also deals with the responsibility of an employer in relation to exempted establishment and therefore it is not open to employer to say that because he has not applied for exemption he is not liable to pay the amounts under Section 8 (b) of the Act, because Section 17 contemplates an exemption being granted whether by an appropriate government to the establishment or by the Commissioner to a class of employees, the result is the same namely the establishment is exempted. It is further held that once the appropriate government grants exemption under Section 17 (1) of the Act or whether the Commissioner grants exemption under Section 17 (2) of the Act for the purpose of the Act, the net result is that it is an exempted establishment. It is further held that if the net result of grant of exemption is an exempted establishment then the Commissioner is certainly authorised to impose revised conditions. It is further held that the scheme of the Act, statutory rules and statutory scheme clearly indicate that Section 17 read as whole constitutes one complete Code dealing with exemption and it is not possible to bifurcate the parameter of Section 17 (1) vis a vis Section 17 (2) of the Act, because it will defeat the very object of the Act and it will defeat the entire scheme of the Act. The learned single Judge by referring to provisions of sub section (3) of Section 17 has held that the exemption granted under Section 17 is one and only exemption and there is no separate exemption contemplated as contended by the Petitioners. The learned Judge has held that the Legislature in enacting the Act has not segregated exemptions into two separate compartments, but the Legislature only referred to exemption under Section 17 as whole and not Section 17 (1) or Section 17 (2). The learned Judge also observed that a Private Provident Fund is exposed to risk factors and the additional conditions are being imposed by the Commissioner for protection of the Private Provident Fund from the risk factors. The learned single Judge has further observed that the additional conditions which are being imposed by the Commissioner sub served the object of the Act and they are meant to protect the Private Provident Fund and therefore they can equally apply even to those employees to whom exemption was granted on individual basis from 1952 of 1988. The learned single Judge has also referred to the 30th Annual Report for the year 1982 83 of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and has held that the conditions which are being imposed by Commissioner are in consonance with the report of the committee on exempted establishments.