LOWTAN Vs. PRESIDING PFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.7.1999 (Annexure-2), passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby the appeal has been rejected on the ground of limitation, and the order dated 25.2.1998 (Annexure-1), passed by Respondent No. 2, has been upheld. It has been held that the Petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of guns on the strength of a valid licence at Munger. It had deposited the employees' contribution under the Act for the period 31.7.1972 to 31.12.1980, whereafter it stopped depositing its contribution. The periods January 1981 to May 1986, and June 1986 to November 1997, are involved in the present proceedings. The matter was then raised before Respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 7A of the Act. Respondent No. 2 held that the Petitioner has been employing 23 employees, had deposited the provident fund contribution of its employees for the period 31.7.1972 to 31.12.1980, and is 'establishment' within the meaning of Section 1(3) of the Act, read with Schedule-I thereto. In other words, it has been held that the Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of a product which is covered by the relevant entry in Schedule-I, namely, electrical, mechanical or general engineering products. Respondent No. 2 relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Girilal and Co., Gun Factory v. Union of India and Ors.,1998 1 BLJ 651.

(3.) Before we proceed further, we may indicate that, by order dated 21.4.2000, passed in the present writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court noticed difference of opinion between the two decisions of this Court, namely, the judgment dated 15.10.1993, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1981 (The Sarkar through Shri D.K. Bhattacharya, Provident Fund Inspector, Bihar, Patna v. Jhunni Lal Sharma), and the judgment in M/s Girilal and Co., Gun Factory v. Union of India and Ors. , both rendered by the learned Single Judges of this Court. It has been held in the former decision of this Court that an establishment in the nature of the Petitioner herein is not covered by the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, it has been held in the latter judgment that it is covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, a learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the matter for the consideration of a Division Bench. That is how the matter comes up before us.