9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. 2. Applicability of the Act to salaried employees. 3. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act: The petitioners contended that Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, which allowed the Central Government to apply the Act to certain establishments, conferred "uncontrolled and uncanalised power" on the Government. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act's purpose is to institute provident funds for employees in various establishments, an idea well-established as a measure of social justice. The Court noted that the Central Government's discretion is presumed not to be abused and is guided by the Act's policy to bring all kinds of employees within its fold. The Court cited previous decisions, such as *The Eduard Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. The State of Ajmer* and *Vasantal Maganbhai Sanjanuwala v. The State of Bombay*, to support the view that the legislative policy and standards were sufficiently clear to guide the Government's discretion. The Court concluded that the Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. 2. Applicability of the Act to Salaried Employees: The petitioners argued that the Act was intended to apply only to wage earners and not to salaried employees. The Court found this distinction unconvincing, stating that both "salary" and "wages" are forms of remuneration for labor. The Act defines "basic wages" broadly, and there is no inherent difference between salary and wages in principle. The Court concluded that the Act was intended to apply to all employees, whether they are paid weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, and regardless of whether their remuneration is termed "salary" or "wages." 3. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners claimed that the Act was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the Act applies to all establishments except those specifically exempted under Section 16. The exemptions for cooperative societies and newly established businesses (for a limited time) are based on reasonable classifications and are intended to foster the growth of cooperative societies and to provide relief to new businesses. The Court found that these exemptions did not amount to hostile discrimination. Additionally, the Court observed that the petitioners' establishment fell within the general rule of Section 1(3) and the scope of the scheme framed under Section 5, and there was no evidence of hostile discrimination against their class of establishments. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners had merit. The provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, including the notifications extending its application to hotels and restaurants, were found to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
|
