9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to demand provident fund contributions for the pre-discovery period. 2. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme retrospectively. 3. Obligation to contribute for employees who left service during the pre-discovery period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Demand Provident Fund Contributions for the Pre-discovery Period: The petitioner, a partnership concern registered under the Factories Act since 1958, was called upon by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to provide information to determine if it fell under the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The Commissioner concluded that the petitioner employed 20 persons as of 31 December 1960 and had completed five years of establishment, thus covering it under the Act from 1 January 1961. The petitioner was directed to deposit the employer's share of contributions and administration charges for the period from 1 January 1961 to 31 May 1963, while employees' contributions were left to the workers to pay if they desired. The petitioner contested this retrospective liability, citing judgments from Madras and Calcutta Courts. However, the Punjab High Court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction, referencing previous decisions affirming the employer's obligation to contribute from the date the Act became applicable. 2. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme Retrospectively: The petitioner argued that the Act and Scheme should not apply retrospectively. The Court referenced the case of Prem Narain Aggarwala v. Union of India, where it was held that liability to contribute commenced from the date the scheme came into force, i.e., 1 November 1952. The Court also discussed the Aluminium Corporation of India, Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner case, where retrospective application was deemed contrary to the Act's purposes. However, the Court found no authoritative pronouncement contrary to the Bench's decision in Prem Narain Aggarwala and thus upheld the retrospective application of the Act and Scheme. 3. Obligation to Contribute for Employees Who Left Service During the Pre-discovery Period: The petitioner contended that contributions should not be demanded for employees who left service during the pre-discovery period. The Court examined the definition of "contribution" and "member" under the Act, noting that the employer was obligated to ensure eligible employees became members of the fund. The Court referenced Paragraph 26 of the Scheme, which required every eligible employee to become a member from the month following the Scheme's enforcement. The Court concluded that the employer had a duty to require employees who fulfilled the conditions to become members, even during the pre-discovery period. The Court acknowledged that disputes regarding the eligibility of specific employees could be resolved by the Commissioner under Paragraph 26B, which provides for a hearing of both employer and employee. Conclusion: The Court dismissed all petitions, affirming the Commissioner's jurisdiction to demand contributions for the pre-discovery period and the retrospective applicability of the Act and Scheme. The Court also upheld the obligation to contribute for employees who left service during the pre-discovery period, subject to verification of their eligibility by the Commissioner. Separate Judgments: The judgment was delivered jointly by D. Falshaw, C.J., and A.N. Grover, J., with no separate judgments provided.
|
