HINDUSTAN ELECTRIC CO Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of the other two connected petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1067 and 1069 of 1957) as common points of law are involved. The facts in civil Writ No. 1068 of 1957 may be shortly stated.

(2.) THE Government of India started a general engineering workshop at Faridabad in which according to the petitioner-company ordinary stoves meant for domestic use were being manufactured. The Government decided to dispose of the factory and invited tenders for its sale. The tender of the petitioner-company was accepted and an agreement was entered into on 17-2-1955 by virtue of which the company purchased the factory for Rs. 3,56,045/8/ -. It is alleged that after the purchase of the factory ihe company utilised the engineering workshop for the manufacture of parts required for installing a motor factory up to June 1950. By means of a letter dated 31-7-1956 the company was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the factory in question fell within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The company was required to deposit the dues on account of contribution and administrative charges in respect of such employees who wore entitled to the benefit of the scheme which had been framed by the Central Government. It was further mentioned in the letter that the date from which the factory started functioning under the Rehabilitation Ministry would be deemed to be the date of its establishment. The company, however, took up the position that the factory had been established by it in October 1955 and the Act was not applicable for three years as provided in section 16 (b ). Oilier objections were raised which need not be stated. As respondent No. 1 did not accept the position advanced by the company the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2a. Mr. S. K. Kapur who appears for the company has raised certain points which are common to all the petitions and it would be convenient to deal with them first. It is contended that Section 5 of the Act is unconstitutional and ultra vires as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, The validity ot Section 5 of the Act is further assailed on tlte ground that its provisions place unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property and thus come into conflict with the provisions of Article 19 (l) (f) of the Constitution.

(3.) IN order to decide the questions that have been canvassed the provisions of the act before its amendment by Act 94 of 1956 atone will be relevant as they would govern the decision of the case.