BIJBASI LIME WORKS Vs. ASSTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the writ petitions, common questions of facts and law arise and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. :

(2.) FACTS which are necessary for decision of the present writ petition and which are not in controversy are that the petitioners manufacture lime and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has held that petitioners' establishments are covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has directed the petitioners to deposit Provident Fund dues. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners had preferred appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal by separate orders held that petitioners' establishments are covered under the provisions of the Act In case ofBrijbasi Lime Work (W.P. No. 1252 of 2000), after holding that the establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for determination of the dues. In case of Mathura Prasad -Sharma (W.P. No. 1279/2000), only controversy was as to whether the petitioners' establishments are covered under the Act and answering the aforesaid question against the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that they being engaged in the business of manufacture of lime, they are not covered under the provisions of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as also the Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held that the establishments engaged in lime industry are covered under the head 'heavy and fine chemicals' and it further held that the factory engaged in non -specified industries is coverable under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act as they are employing 20 or more persons.