GUN FACTORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involves in this writ application is as to whether the establishment of the petitioner is covered by theprovision of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7-6-95 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 2) contained in Annexure-7 by which he has held that the petitioner's industry is covered by the provisions of the Act and thereafter has determined the amount payable by the petitioner under the Provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder in exercise of power under Section 7-A of the Act.

(3.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and was established in the year, 1948 and is engaged in manufacturing single and double barrel short guns under a valid licence granted under the Arms Act. It has been registered as a Small Scale, Industry Unit by the State of Bihar, in the year, 1996 once Sri M.K. Bhatnagar, an employee of the provident fund office visited the gun factory of the petitioner and other factories situated in the town of Monghyr and found twenty-eight persons working in the factory of the petitioner and, accordingly, he submitted a report on 29-11-1966 vide An- nexure-A to the counter affidavit and thereafter the provision of the Act was made applicable to the petitioner's industry w.e.f. 13-11-1966 and he was allotted BR/1474 as Code number and the petitioner continuously paid the money under the Act and the Scheme upto 1990. There was default in payment of the money due from the petitioner's employer and a prosecution case was launched againt partners of the firm under Section 14-A of the Act and by judgment daterd 3-4-90 they were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them. While acquitting them the trial court held that the Act is not applicable to the gun factory of the petitioner. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the application. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped the payment of money due under the Act and the Scheme on 28-12-93. A notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent authority to the petitioner to appear under Section 7 A of the Act to determine the amount due under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. The petitioner filed a show cause on 20-1-94 alleging inter alia that the Act is not applicable to the establishment in question as it is not an industry which is covered by Schedule-I of the Act and the number of persons employed in it is less than twenty. Thereafter, after hearing the parties the impugned order has been passed holding that the Act is ap- plicable and the petitioner has been directed by the said order to pay the amount due under the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.