SUSHIL CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner Shri Sushil chowdhury is admittedly Proprietor of two establishments viz. (1) being the Editor, Printer publisher and the Proprietor of a Newspaper under the name and style of "dainik ganadoot", and (2) Printing Press under the name and style Pioneer Press filed the present writ petition assailing the letter of the enforcement Officer being No. E. O. / sro/tr/inv/2262, dated December 31, 1997 for giving his comment and justification that pioneer Press and Dainik Ganadoot come under the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also the order of the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organisation, Sub-Regional Office, near bholagiri Ashram, Airport Road, Kathal bagan, Agartala dated July 28, 1998 under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short Employees' Pro-vident Funds Act, 1952)as communicated under No. SRO/tr/emf/ AS/2225/1247, dated August 7, 1998 for recovery of dues as provided under Section 8 of the provident Funds Act, 1952 from the Pioneer press and Dainik Ganadoot bearing No. SFO/ tr/2225 for the period from July, 1993 to april, 1998 on the two grounds - (a) The provision of the "employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952" and 'the Employees' Provident funds Scheme" are not applicable to Dainik ganadoot being the newspaper establishment. (b) Pioneer Press and Dainik Ganadoot are separate and independent establishment.

(2.) HEARD Mr. S. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of india appearing fortherespondentnos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE facts so far as they are relevant for determining the present writ petition is that, the present petitioner as stated above is the Editor, printer, Publisher and the Proprietor of the newspaper Establishment "dainik Ganadoot" and also proprietor of the Printing Press "pioneer Press". It is the case of the petitioner that Pioneer Press is registered and licensed under the Factories Act having nine (9)workers, while Dainik Ganadoot is a newspaper establishment with 14 workers out of whom four (4) are casual and the temporary workers recruited only on daily basis. The said two establishments are different and also that the "dainik Ganadoot" being the newspaper establishment is exempted from application of the provision of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also further case of the petitioner that even if the said two establishments i. e. Pioneer Press and dainik Ganadoot are taken to be one and same establishment, total number of persons employed in the said establishment taken together is less than 20 persons inasmuch as 4 casual employees on daily basis cannot be counted for determining the number of employees under the provision of Section 1 (3)of the Employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.