REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. UNIVERSAL FASTNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular second appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1984 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh whereby suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed with costs and also the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh whereby appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1984 has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') filed suit for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act, 1952") are not applicable to the respondent and the order dated 20.6.1983 of the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') is null and void. It is averred in the plaint that at the relevant time, the respondent was running a factory in the name and style of M/s. Universal Fastners and the said factory was located at 359, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and Mr. S.S. Gujral was the Manager of the same. It is further averred that establishment of the respondent was registered under the Factories Act and had a licence to run the said factory granted by the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh with a direction that the establishment must have less than 20 persons. This factory was also covered under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act and this coverage had been made under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act being an establishment employing more than 10 persons, but less than 20. The trial court after considering the pleadings framed the following issues:

(2.) The case of appellant is that when the said factory was checked on 6.2.1982 by two Provident Fund Inspectors, they found 21 persons working in the factory. The signatures/thumb impressions of majority of the workers working in the factory were obtained. It was also averred that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was the further stand of the appellant that according to the Act, 1952, the establishment to be covered under the Act, 1952 must employ 20 or more persons. On 6.2.1982, when the factory was inspected, it was found that the respondent had employed 21 persons as a result of which the provisions of the Act, 1952 were applicable.

(3.) When this appeal was admitted, no substantial question of law was framed, nor the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to raise any substantial question of law during the course of arguments. Yet, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the courts below.