DAILY PARTAP Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PUNJAB HARYANA HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have brought in challenge two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the decision of the learned single Judge of the High Court who has considered identical questions of law. Consequently, both these appeals were heard together. Learned counsel for the respective parties were heard in support of their cases and thereafter both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The common question which falls for consideration of this Court in these appeals is as to whether the appellants which are carrying on the business of printing and publishing newspapers in the State of Punjab at Jallandhur are liable to remit contributions under Section 6 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'act') to the authorities functioning under the Act along with the matching contributions from their respective employees, so far as the amounts paid by the appellants to their employees under identical schemes of Production Bonus are concerned. The learned single Judge of the High Court in his impugned has taken the view that the said statutory liability is foisted on the appellants. By summarily dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals against the said decision of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench has confirmed the said view and that is how the appellants are before us in these proceedings. A few relevant introductory facts deserve to be noted to appreciate the common grievance of the appellants

(3.) The appellants were carrying on the business of printing of the newspapers in the city of Jallandhar in the State of Punjab and circulating the same to their customers. They were alleged to have not remitted their contributions along with the share of their concerned employees to the extent of the amounts paid by them for the period from August, 197 5/03/1976 by way of Production Bonus. The contention of the appellants was that as the disputed amounts were paid to the concerned employees under the relevant Production Bonus Schemes they were not liable to remit contributions for the same as per Section 6 of the Act. On the basis of the said contention, they filed writ petitions earlier against the aforesaid demand of the authorities before the High Court. In the said writ petitions filed in the year 1976, the then learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana appearing for the authorities, conceded before the High Court that the appellants were not required to deposit the provident fund on the Production Bonus and the appellants may deposit provident fund only on "wages" as defined in the Act from August, 1975 and with regard to the refund of the amount deposited in respect of Production Bonus, the appellants may apply to the respondent authorities, who, after giving them hearing, would decide the matter within three months. The said decision of the High Court in both these writ petitions moved by the appellants were rendered on 19/07/1976. Thereafter the respondent authorities gave hearing to the appellants and ultimately took the view that the disputed amounts for which contributions were asked for under Section 6 of the Act from the appellants were part of the "basic wages" and no such Production Bonus Scheme was existing in the appellants' concerns. Consequently, the claim of the appellants for non-application of Section 6 of the Act of these disputed amounts was rejected. Under these circumstances, the appellants once again carried the matters in writ petitions before the High Court. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order which came in their turn to be confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeals as noted earlier.