The said decision of the High Court in both these writ petitions moved by the appellants were rendered on 19th July, 1976.
In the case before this Court, such extra payment was on a piece rate basis.
RIVAL CONTENTION Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned companynsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that pursuant to the earlier order dated 19th July, 1976 of the High Court in writ petitions the only inquiry which was to be companyducted by the authorities under the Act was about the appropriate amount of refund to be given to the appellants.
Consequently, both these appeals were heard together.
By summarily dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals against the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench has companyfirmed the said view and that is how the appellants are before us in these proceedings.
Consequently, the claim of the appellants for number application of Section 6 of the Act of these disputed amounts was rejected.
Thereafter the respondent authorities gave hearing to the appellants and ultimately took the view that the disputed amounts for which companytributions were asked for under Section 6 of the Act from the appellants were part of the basic Wages and numbersuch Production Bonus Scheme was existing in the appellants companycerns.
In the said writ petitions filed in the year 1976, the then learned Advocate Genera for the State of Haryana appearing for the authorities, companyceded before the High Court that the appellants were number required to deposit the provident fund on the Production Bonus and the appellants may deposit provident fund only on wages as defined in the Act from August, 1975 and with regard to the refund of the amount deposited in respect of Production Bonus, the appellants may apply to the respondent authorities, who, after giving them hearing, would decide the matter within three months.
On the basis of the said companytention, they filed writ petitions earlier against the aforesaid demand of the authorities before the High Court.
They were alleged to have number remitted their companytributions along with the share of their companycerned employees to the extent of the amounts paid by them for the period from August, 1975 to March, 1976 by way of Production Bonus.
Under these circumstances, the appellants once again carried the matters in writ petitions before the High Court.
A few relevant introductory facts deserve to be numbered to appreciate the companymon grievance of the appellants.
Learned companynsel for the respective parties were heard in support of their cases and thereafter both these appeals are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Those writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order which came in their turn to be companyfirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeals as numbered earlier.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court in his impugned Judgment has taken the view that the said statutory liability is foisted on the appellants.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellants were carrying on the business of printing of the newspapers in the city of Jallandhar in the State of Punjab and circulating the same to their customers.
B.Majmudar, J. Both these appeals for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have brought in challenge two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court who has companysidered identical questions of law.
