GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-62
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 06,1997

GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M/S WIRE NETTING STARES,DELHI AND ANR. V. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUNDS COMMISSIONER,NEW DELHI AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SUKHCHAIN SINGH AND CO. V. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GUJCHEM DISTILLERS INDIA LTD,AHMEDAHAD V. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF PRATAP PRESS NEW DELHI VS. SECRETARY DELHI PRESS WORKERS UNION DELHI IN C A NO 482 OF 58 AND ITS WORKMEN IN C A NO 189 OF 59 [REFERRED TO]
ISHA STEEL TREATMENT BOMBAY VS. ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PREM KRISHAN GOODS TRANSPORT CO VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)In the writ petition, two questions are urged. The first question relates to the constitutional validity of Section 7 -A of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereafter referred to as the Act). According to learned counsel, The Section is not provide for a judicial review or further appeal and, therefore, it is arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. Reliance placed upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Wire Netting Stores, u & Anr. v. The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi & 1981 Lab. J.C. 1015. After the judgment of the Delhi High Court was rendered there was an amendment of the provisions of the Act and the Act provided for constitution of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 7 -D. As per Act a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding officer a Tribunal unless he is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of a High tout Thus, the lacuna pointed out by the Delhi High Court has been rectified by the amendment. But, learned counsel for the petitioner contend that though the amendment has come into force, the Central Government has not chosen to constitute a Tribunal and thus, the provisions of Section 7 -D are ineffective. Even so, Section 7 - cannot be said to be un -constitutional in as much as the legislature has done its duty by introducing a provision for appellate Tribunal. If right have been open to the petitioner to seek a mandamus against the Central Government for constituting the Tribunal and thereby implementing the provision of Section 7 -D of the Act. For our purpose, we are convinced that Section 7 -A is not arbitrary and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)We may also point out that a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Sukhchain Singh and Co. v. Food Corporation of India, 1985 Lab.J.C. -711,held thatSection7 -Aisnotviolativeof Article \ 14 of the Constitution of India. The Punjab Bench has dissented from the reasoning of the Delhi Bench. In our opinion, the reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana Bench appears to be more acceptable, but it is not necessary for us to go into that question in view of the amendment of the Act referred to above.
(3.)The next question relates to the validity of the order passed by the t Regional Provident Fund Commissioner found in Annexure p -1. As rightly t submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Regional provident Fund Commissioner has only set out the contentions of both sides and also relevant tests laid down by various judgments referred to by him for deciding the question whether the Act would apply to the petitioner, but has not chosen to give his own finding of act as to whether the petitioner will fall within the scope of the expression new establishment found in Section 16(l)(d) of the Act. Under that Section, any establishment newly setup, until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment is, or has been set up is excluded from the purview of the Act. Section 2 -a declares that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches can be treated as parts of the same establishment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.