STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer, Mukerian Hydel Civil Construction Division No. 1 (I.P.P. Division), Talwara Township, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the quashing of the order dated 6th May, 1987, of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh, under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act No. 19 of 1952) as amended up to Act 33 of 1 hereinafter referred to as the Act, by which it has been held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the employees of Mukerian Hydel Civil Construction Division No. 1, Talwara Township, and the employer establishment was duty bound in law to deposit its contribution regularly towards the provident fund of its employees-Respondents Nos. 2 to 118. The principal ground of attack of the Petitioner against the impugned order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is that the Petitioner establishment was not covered in the definition of the word "industry" under Section 2(i) of 'the Act', as the same was different from the definition of "industry" as envisaged under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) Elaborating the plea made by the Petitioner, it has been contended that Irrigation Department of the State Government may be covered within the definition of "industry" for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the same is not covered for the purposes of 'the Act' as it is not a factory. It was on that basis that due to inadvertence, the Petitioner employer started making deductions from the wages of its employees, that is, Respondents Nos. 2 to 118, on account of the employees' provident fund contribution with effect from March, 1983. and contained to do so up to June, 1984. Thereafter, when the Petitioner-employer realised that it was not governed by the Provisions of 'the Act', it discontinued making any deductions.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been disclosed in an elaborate and detailed version that the Mukerian Hydel Civil Construction Division of the Petitioner-employer is engaged in building and construction activity in connection with the Hydel Channel by employing about 200 workmen, all of whom are not on work-charged basis, Moreover, the work-charged employees were covered within the definition of employ under Section 2(f) of 'the Act', as they were employed in connection with the work of the establishment, that building and construction of the Hydel Channel and its up-keep and maintenance, etc.