PRAKASH D SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order dated February 6, 2001, passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai under the Section 7-A of the Employees Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The challenge is on two grounds, namely that their working in the firm cannot be construed as an employee of the firm, and secondly, that the authority erred in misconstruing the amended provision regarding the infancy period in as much as though the firm of the petitioners having been established prior to amendment to the Section 16 (l) (d) of the said Act, whereby the infancy period was of three years, the petitioners could not have been denied the exemption from the provisions of the said Act for a period of three years from the date of its inception merely because during the subsistence of the said period of three years the section 16 (l) (d) of the said Act was amended, deleting the availability of the infancy period. Reliance is placed, in support of the first ground of challenge in the matter of the regional Director, Employees State Insurance corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match industries, reported in AIR 1985 SC 278 : 1985 (1) SCC 218 : 1985-I-LLJ-69, and in relation to the second ground of challenge, in the: decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. , reported in 1999-I-LLJ-792:

(3.) THE Apex Court in Regional Director, employees State Insurance Corporation, trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries (supra)clearly held that (1985-I-LLJ-69 at p. 71):