Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. - (1.) Welfare economics, enlightened self-interest and the pressure of trade unions led larger factories and establishments to introduce schemes that would benefit their employees, including schemes like that of the provident fund. L. N. Gadodia & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2011 13 SCC 517. However, with an increasing number of small factories and establishments coming into the market, the employees of such fledgling units remained deprived of these benefits. In order to diffuse such benefits in establishments across the market, the legislature promulgated the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The said Act was enacted with the avowed object of providing for the security of workers in organised industries, in the absence of any social security scheme prevalent in our country. To avoid any hardship to new establishments, a provision was made for exempting them from the aegis of the said Act, for a period of five years. This period was reduced to three years in 1988 and the exemption provision was completely removed from 22.9.1997.
(2.) The relevant provision of the said Act is reproduced hereinunder: "16. Act not to apply to certain establishments. - (1) This Act shall not apply- . . . . . . (d) to any other establishment newly set up, until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment is, or has been, set up. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that an establishment shall not be deemed to be newly set up merely by reason of a change in its location."
(3.) The present appeals are concerned with this exemption provision as the three establishments in question claimed exemption in respect of application of this provision of the said Act.;