1963 (4) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.
2. Retrospective effect of notices served.
3. Equitability of enforcing notices without employees' contributions.
4. Principal and subsidiary industrial activities within a composite factory.
5. Implications of amended Section 6 on contribution rates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952:
The primary issue was whether the factory run by the appellant fell within the scope of Section 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The appellant's factory consisted of a tile factory and an engineering works, both situated on the same premises and under the same license. The Court referenced a recent decision (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1536) which clarified that Section 1(3)(a) is not limited to factories exclusively engaged in industries listed in Schedule I but also includes composite factories running multiple industries, some of which fall under Schedule I. The Court concluded that since the appellant's factory ran two independent industries, one of which fell under Schedule I, it was subject to Section 1(3)(a).

2. Retrospective Effect of Notices Served:
The appellant argued that the notices served by the respondent were retrospective and thus illegal. The High Court rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court found no merit in the claim that the notices had a retrospective effect.

3. Equitability of Enforcing Notices Without Employees' Contributions:
The appellant contended that enforcing the notices was inequitable since employees had not made their contributions for the relevant period. The High Court noted that the respondent had conceded not to collect the employees' share of contributions for that period, deeming this concession proper and fair. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no substance in the appellant's grievance regarding the inequity of the notices.

4. Principal and Subsidiary Industrial Activities within a Composite Factory:
The Court examined whether the engineering industry or the tile industry was the primary activity of the appellant's factory. The appellant argued that the tile industry was the dominant one due to its earlier establishment and larger workforce. However, the Court held that since both industries were independent of each other, the question of which was primary or subsidiary did not arise. The Court reiterated that Section 1(3)(a) applied to composite factories running independent industries, one of which falls under Schedule I, regardless of the dominance of any particular industry.

5. Implications of Amended Section 6 on Contribution Rates:
The appellant expressed concerns about the increased contribution rates under the amended Section 6, applicable to certain industries by government notification. The Court declined to address this hypothetical issue, stating it was a matter for the respondent to decide. The Court noted that the tiles industry had been included in Schedule I after the High Court's decision, but the revised rate had not been applied to it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the appellant's factory fell within the purview of Section 1(3)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the retrospective effect of notices, the inequity of enforcing notices without employees' contributions, and the primary versus subsidiary nature of the industries within the composite factory. The issue of increased contribution rates under the amended Section 6 was left to be decided by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.