RAJESHWAR RAO Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF filed Title Suit No. 15 of 1968, in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, on 24 April 1968, for a declaration that the S. S. V. Talkies- a cinema exhibition hall- at Berhampur, is not an "establishment" to which the provisions of the employees' Provident Funds Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would have application and for a declaration that the various proceedings taken by the Commissioner and the certificate proceedings initiated against the establishment before defendant 3-certificate officer-were not tenable and for other consequential reliefs. He pleaded that he was the managing proprietor of the exhibition hall and the said hall was in existence for above forty years. Though in para. 4 of the plaint it had been stated that the establishment did not have more than twenty employees, it has been the case of the plaintiff that the strength of the employees was less than the statutory requirement of twenty and on that ground mainly, the Act had no application. There is no dispute that if twenty or more employees work in an establishment and other conditions are satisfied, the establishment would come within the purview of the Act. Plaintiff alleged that an order under S. 7a of the Act had been made in June 1965, requiring him to deposit an estimated sum of Rs. 2,000 as the employer's contribution. There had been no assessment of liability and yet such a demand had been raised. Plaintiff disputed his liability and on 16 February 1967, defendant 1 again raised a demand of Rs. 4,696. 50 and administrative charges of Rs. 196. 90 for the period between august 1961 and December 1966, vide exhibit 12 and called upon the plaintiff to pay the same. This amount was also said to be approximate. For default of payment, two certificate cases being Nos. 381 of 1966 and 256 of 1967 were initiated against the plaintiff before the certificate officer (defendant 3 ). According to the plaintiff, there has been no determination of liability in accordance with act, there has been no assessment as provided and, therefore, the action taken against the plaintiff by defendant 1 before defendant 3 was not maintainable.

(2.) DEFENDANTS1. 3 and 4 filed a common written statement and maintained that the suit was not maintainable, inasmuch as jurisdiction of the civil Court in the matter has been ousted by statute. Plaintiff's exhibition hall was an establishment to which the Act applied. Originally, there; was a demand of rs. 2,000 which stood revised at Rs. 4,696. 50 together with contribution of Rs. 196. 90 as administrative charges. It was further pleaded that the notice under S. 80 of the Civil procedure Code was defective inasmuch as it had disputed the liability of Rs. 2,000 and there was no dispute in regard to the balance amount.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, two witnesses were examined for the plaintiff-one being the manager of the cinema hall and the other claiming to be the proprietor of the cinema business. Both sides produced several documents. The learned Additional Subordinate judge who tried the suit, dismissed it holding against the plaintiff on all counts. In appeal, plaintiff has also lost and this second appeal has been directed against the confirming decree of the lower appellate Court.