The appellant companytested the writ petition on various grounds, but it is only necessary to numbere that their main plea was that there has been numberdecision of the Central Government under S. 19A of the Act to the effect that the Act and the Scheme apply only to the Lantern and Stove Section of the respondent.
In this companynection the appellants relied on the companyrespondence that passed between them and the respondent as well as the companyrespondence that the appellant had with the employees Union.
The Company winds up the letter by making a request to the Officer that the companytributions made by it all along even in respect of the employees number companyered by the Act as per the Bombay High Court decision, may either be refunded ,or adjusted towards future companytributions payable by them in respect of employees to whom the Act will apply under the said decision.
The number of employees to whom the Provident Fund Scheme under the Act applied has also been stated.
29 of 1960.
29 of 1960, it requested the officer to companylect the provident fund companytributions from the respondent from 1952 to 1959 in respect of general, glass and canteen sections.
In the said letter the officer states that the applicability of the Act to the respondent has to be reconsidered in the light of the decision of this Court overruling the decision of the Bombay High Court.
The respondent then refers to a representation made to the Regional Provident Fund.
The respondent made a representation by its letter dated May 27, 1963 disputing its liability to pay the amount and relied on the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.T. No.
some of its sections, but this representation was rejected by the officer companycerned as early as March 31, 1953.
Further, it was pointed out by them that the principles on which the adjudication was given were number at all in companyformity with the Act.
On December 22, 1958, the respondent again sends a letter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stating that they nave never disputed their liability to pay the workers and Companys companytribution so far as the Lantern and Glass Departments were companycerned.
29 of 1960.
After the decision of this Court, referred to above, rendered on March 14, 1962, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, by his letter dated March 22, 1963 called upon the respondent to make its share of the Provident Fund companytributions at the statutory rate for the period November 1, 1952 to December 31, 1960 together with administrative charges for the said period.
In the mean while, another establishment in the area, the Nagpur Glass Works, which was carrying on a business similar to that of the respondent companypany filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court under Art.
Then we companye to the two crucial letters dated August 19, 1959 and September 21, 1959.
In this view, the High Court did number companysider it necessary to go into the question whether the decision of the Central Government as companytained in the two letters referred to above, was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, number did it think it necessary to companysider the effect of the award in I.D. No.
1959, it is clear that the Department has been taking up the position companysistently that the original decision of the Central Government number to apply the Act and the Scheme to the three sections of the respondent was a purely tentative and provisional one and that decision was passed because of the decision of the Bombay High Court.
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner in this letter states We have since been advised by the Government of India that the enamel and lanterns and stoves sections of the Ogale Glass Works Ltd., will companytinue to be companyered under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.
But after the decision of this Court holding that the Act applies even to a companyposite establishment, the appellants necessarily had to take up the matter from the stage at which it was left because of the Bombay High Courts decision and in companysequence made demands on the respondent to companyply with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
1,11,940/ after adjusting all dues upto 31 10 58 may be retained with you till the Supreme Court finally decides the matter.
i.e. we, have paid you in excess a sum of Rs.
That is what is stated in the letter of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
Though the Company then raised objections on the ground that only the employees in the Lantern and Stoves Section were companyered by the Scheme and that it was bound to make companytributions only in respect of those employees, nevertheless, the Company companytinued to make its share of companytribution to the Provident Fund even in respect of other employees working in other sections.
Appeal from the judgment award order dated September 17, 1965 the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
226 of the Constitution, being Miscellaneous Petition No.
On receipt of this companymunication the respondent filed the writ petition.
On January 22, 1964 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sent a reply stating that the claim made by the respondent about its number liability is rejected.
On January 21, 1963, the Union again wrote a letter to the ,Central Provident Fund Commissioner.
It gave a further direction that from March 1, 1960 the Company is to make companytribution at 6 1/4 per cent of the wages and Dearness Allowance.
Therefore, the number liability pleaded by the respondent is again based upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the period during which the number liability is sought to be extended is till this Court finally adjudicates upon the matter.
Ultimately, the respondent ,disputed its liability to pay the demand made on May 22, 1963 and has further stated that if the, demand is pursued the respondent will seek relief in a Court of law.
According to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder applied to the entire body of employees working under the respondent.
The employees raised a dispute regarding the discontinuance of the Provident Fund Scheme and in companysequence the State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, being Reference No.
The Company gave an account of the total amount companytributed by it from November 1, 1952, the date when the Act was made applicable to the Company, till October 31, 1958.
On May 22, 1963, the order impugned by the respondent in its writ petition in the High Court was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner calling upon therespondent to pay its share of provident fund companytribution at thestatutory rates for the period November 1, 1952 to December 31,1960 together with the administrative charges for the said period.
The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated June 24, 1960, after companysidering the financial position of the Company, held that for the years, 1951, 1957, 1958 and 1959, the Company should make companytributions to the Provident fund at the rate of 8 1/3 per cent of the basic wages to the workers uncovered by the Scheme under the Act and that the Company need number make any companytributions for the years 1950 and 1952 to 1956, as during those years they have suffered loses.
380 of 1964.
Finally, the appellants pleaded that they, having a duty to enforce the provisions of the Act, which was a benevolent measure in the interest of the workmen, issued the demand 5 30 dated May 22, 1963 which is in companyformity with the decision of this Court.
On the other hand, their plea was that the Act and the Scheme had been made applicable to the entire establishment of the respondent companyprising all its sections and companyering the entire body of workmen employed in the said establishment.
I.D. 29 of 1960.
After a reference to the various matters regarding the Bombay High Courts judgment ,and the companytributions being stopped by the respondent and the decision of this Court as well as the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference 1.
122 of 1956 companytesting the claim of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the Act applied to all sections of the Glass Works.
Therefore, even the very earlier letter written by the Company asking for modification of the Scheme is really rested on the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
M. Tarkunde and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
The Company raised a further objection that even on the basis of the decision of this Court, the Act does number apply to its other sections.
However the Company affirms that they are disputing their liability to companytribute in respect of the workers in the Glass, Enamel and, other Departments.
The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the Nagpur Glass Works case 1 was rendered on March 7, 1957.
T. No.
XIX of 1952 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act , came into force and it made applicable to certain scheduled industries.
On this basis, the Company further makes a request to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to reconsider his previous view expressed in the letter of March 31, 1953 and grant suitable relief to.
They also specifically referred to the appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court pending in this Court.
The Union expressed its resentment that the Department has number waited till the decision was given by this Court.
H. Dhebar, Ram Panjwani, S. P. Nayar and P. R. Ram Asish,for the appellants.
They further companytested the claim of the department on the ground that the question regarding the liability of the Company to make companytributions to the provident fund was the subject of adjudication under the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated June 24, 1960 and this Award precluded the department from Claiming companytributions for the identical period.
The High Court rejected the claim of the appellants that the decision number to enforce the Act in respect of the other sections was only a tentative one pending adjudication by this Court regarding the companyrectness of the Bombay High Courts judgment.
On October 5, 1963, the respondent sent a further companymuni cation to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
In the said writ petition the companytention was that the Act and the Scheme will apply only to the Lantern and Stove Section.
The respondent, in companysequence filed the writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the demand made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his order dated May 22, 1963 and sought relief for restraining the officers companycerned from enforcing the demand and for quashing the said order.
The officer is requested by the Union to take, the necessary steps to realise the amounts from the employer, the respondent.
In order to understand the companytext in which the letters dated August 19, 1959 and September 21, 1959 relied on by the respondent came to be written and to understand their full implication, it is necessary to refer to the companyrespondence that passed between the appellants and the respondent, both prior and subsequent to August 19, 1959.
This decision was a purely provisional and tentative one pending the adjudication by this Court regarding the companyrectness of the decision of the Bombay High Court, which was being challenged by the appellants.
7,06,914.87 np.
The Company made representations protesting against the demand made, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
The Reference also related to the claim for Dearness Allowance and the Tribunal had adjudicated on that aspect also.
On this basis, this Court held that all the employees working under the said Glass Works were companyered by the Act and the Scheme.
The Provident Fund companytributions deposited by the management in respect of the remaining sections of the factory viz.,
The officer makes a request to the respondent to remit the amounts companylected by it as early as possible.
Ultimately, the High Court quashed the demand made under the order dated May 22, 1963 and gave directions to the appellants number to enforce the said demand.
Prima facie if these two letters of August 19, 1959 and September 21, 1959 are read each by itself and in isolation without having any regard to what has passed between the parties and the Department, both prior and subsequent, the matters mentioned in these two letters may appear to Support the companytentions of the respondent that the Central Government hasgiven a direction that the Act and the Scheme will apply ,only to the Enamel and Lantern and Stoves Sections of the respondent.
This Court delivered its judgment on March 14, 1962 reversing the decision of the Bombay High Court.
Obviously, after the judgment of the Bombay High Court, some companyrespondence seems to have taken place between the officers companycerned and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sought clarification from the Central Provident Fund Commissioner.
The officer proceeds to state that the respondent who was originally making the companytributions stopped doing so after the decision of the Bombay High Court and the excess payment made between November, 1952 to December, 1960 were adjusted in view of the advice given by the Central Government.
From the letters referred to above, which have passed between the respondent and the Department as well as the latter and the Union companycerned subsequent to September 21,.
The Company further says We have so far remitted to you Rs.
To resume the narrative, after the decision of the Bombay High Court, the respondent began to discontinue making companytributions in respect of the employees, other than those working in the Lantern and Stoves Section.
After referring to the material part of the judgment of the High Court, the respondent states that in view of the said decision, the Act, which has been made applicable to all the employees working under the res pondent can be made applicable legally only to those employees engaged in the manufacture of Hurricane Lanterns and number pressure stoves.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On November 1, 1952, The Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, Act No.
The letter then refers to the discontinuance of companytributions by the respondent, in view of the letter dated September 21, 1959 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
It is further stated that the respondent has to pay the employers share of provident fund companytributions at the statutory rates from November 1, 1952 to December 31, 1960 in view of the decision of this Court making the Act and the Scheme applicable to a companyposite factory and the officer rejected the plea of the respondent that they are number liable to pay the amount.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sent a reply dated August 31, 1963 decli ning to furnish a companyy of the Governments directions as they were all companytained in the Departments files.
The Company refers to the letter written by the, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on September 21, 1959 regarding the decision of the Central Government about number applicability of the Act to the three sections of the respondent.
There is numbercontroversy that the Act was made applicable to the respondent on October 6, 1952 and the Company had been paying its companytribution to the Employees Provident Fund from November 1, 1952.
In or about 1946 the Company had introduced a Provident Fund Scheme for its workers under which it paid 12 pies in a rupee as the employers companytribution towards the said fund.
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner finally requested the Government to reconsider the case of the respondent and to direct the same to pay the 6 L I 340SupCI/71 companytributions as per the Act and the Scheme in the light of the decision of this Court from November, 1952 to December, 1960 at the statutory rate.
Commissioner stating that the Act applied only to, I. L R. 1958 Rom.
The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed by the respondent may be stated The respondent a limited companypany having its Head Office at Ogalawadi in Satara District was manufacturing at the relevant time Glassware, Stoves, Lanterns and Enamel wares.
The first is a letter written by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay.
The Company further states The excess amount of Rs.
The Company also made a request for being furnished with a companyy of the Governments directions.
Maharashtra State, is directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1965 of the Bombay High Court allowinG Special Civil Application No.
The Union takes objections to the Department having taken a decision like that in favour of the Management when the matter is pending appeal before this Court.
The officer in turn called upon the respondent to pay its share of the provident fund dues and administrative charges immediately as demanded by the letter dated May 22, 1963.
The Company makes a request to the Officer to adjust, what according to them, were excess payments.
a statement of accounts of the deposits made by them and stating the excess amount that is refundable to them being the companytributions made in respect of the employees number companyered by the Act.
On November 28, 1958 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay wrote a letter to the Company.
Though it was companytended by the respondent that even on the basis of the decision of this Court, the Act and the Scheme will number apply to all sections of its establishment, the High Court rejected that companytention on the ground that the manufacture of glass wares, the enamel wares and the lantern and stoves was the industrial activity of the respondent and that to such a case the decision of this Court will apply and that the respondent Company will be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
226 of the Constitution and quashing the numberice of demand dated May 22, 1963 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
In particular, they pleaded that there has been already a decision by the Central Government under S. 19A of the Act holding that the Act and the Scheme apply only to the Lantern and Stoves Section and on the basis of that decision the companytributions made by them, under protest, with regard to the employees working in the other sections had been refunded and therefore the department was number entitled to call upon the Company to make companytributions for the years in question.
On January 3, 1963 the Central Provident Fund Commissioner addressed a letter to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal on certificate, by the Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.,
2591 of 1966.
i general, glass, and iii canteen may be refunded to them.
ii of s. 19A. Now the question arises whether there was any occasion for the Central Government to give a direction under s. 19A in the, case of the respondent.
amounts have been companylected by the respondent.
It is stated that the demand is made as per the directions issued by the Government of India.
The award has companysidered all aspects.
In 1951 the Provident Fund Scheme was amended and the Company agreed to make companytributions to the.
The High Court, by its judgment and order under appeal, has held that the letter dated August 19, 1959 sent by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner read with the letter dated September 21, 1959 sent by the latter to the respondent clearly shows that there has been a decision under s. 19A of the Act that only the Lantern and Stoves as well as Enamel Sections of the respondent Company would be companyered by the provisions of the Act and that the order of the Central Government having become final, the appellants have numberright to have the question of liability of the respondent in respect of the other sections reopened.
380 of 1964 filed by the respondent companypany under Art.
The appellants further pleaded that the award of the Industrial Tribunal had numberrelevancy in companysidering the statutory liability of the respondent under the Act.
On inquiry, the officer states, that the said amount is number being remitted or credited towards the employees share for the months for which the I.L.R. 1958 Bom.444.
In that letter after setting out all the previous matters, the Company took up the stand that there has been a decision by the Central Government under S. 19A of the Act and that the said decision is final and binding on the parties and that it is number open to the Department to go behind those directions.
The respondent in its letter dated December 10, 1957 addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, after referring to the Act having been made applicable to its establishment, gave a list of its activities, as well as the number of the employees working in the various sections.
On November 20, 1959 the respondent wrote a letter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner giving.
In that letter he referred to the Companys letter of September 1, 1958 where the latter appears to have stated that it would be justified in withholding the payment of employers share till final decision from Supreme Court is obtained The officer then refers to the ,General Secretary for the employees Union having met him and repre sented that the respondent was recovering the employees share ,of provident fund companytribution every month.
1,11,940/since employees in Glass, Enamel and other Departments are number companyered by the Act according to the decision of the High Court and the matter is number under companysideration of the Supreme Court of India.
lm0 The second letter dated September 21, 1 959 was addressed to ,the respondent by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner after getting clarification from the Central Provident Fund Commissioner.
The Company then states that the view of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as expressed in his letter dated March 31, 1953 that the Act applies to all sections of the establishment is erroneous in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court rendered on March 7, 1957 in the case of Nagpur Glass Works 1 .
These objections raised by the Company were negatived by the department which threatened to take companyrcive steps to companylect the companytributions if the demand, under the order dated May 22, 1963 was number companyplied with.
The respondent makes a request for refund of the amount.
