Dalip R.Kapur - (1.) Popular Electric Works is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, with its registered office at 19, Municipal Market Connaught Circus, New Delhi It is claimed that the firm is exclusively engaged in 'building and construction industry and its sole activity is to carry out electrical installation work in Government and semi-government buildings under construction. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, an authority under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, sought to apply the Act to the said firm and also to other firms which carry on business of a more or less similar character. This has led to the present Writ Petition which is Civil Writ Petition No. 290 D of 1965. The first petitioner is the aforementioned firm, M/s. Popular Electric Works, and the second petitioner is an Association of Electrical Contractors, which is a registered trade organisation having as its members various electrical contractors carrying on business similar to the first petitioner There are four other Writ Petitions, which are numbered, Civil Writ Petitions Nos 289-D,291-D,292-Dand293.Dofl965,in which the first petitioner are firms similar to M/s. Popular Electrical Works and the second Petitioner is the Association of Electrical Contractors. This judgment will also govern those petitions because they involve exactly the same points as the present case.
(2.) The Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 was enacted by Parliament in 1952 and provided that the Act shall apply to certain establishments mentioned in Section 1(3). This Section has two subclauses (a) and (b) which provide that the Act shall apply :- " (a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed, and (b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf ;" The first petitioner did not have an establishment covered by the Act initially, but on 17th September, 1964, a notification No.G.S.R. 1398, was published in the Gazetta of India specifying certain establishments to which the Act was to apply. The establishments mentioned in that notifications ere:- " (i) attorneys as defined in the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961); (ii) Chartered or registered Accountants, as defined in the Chartered Accountants Act, .949 (38 of 1949) ; (iii) Costs and Works Accountants within the. meaning of the Costs and Works Accountants Act, 1959. (iv) Engineers and engipneering contractors not being exclusively engaged in building and construction industry ; (v) Architects; (vi) Medical practitioners and medical specialists, in which twenty or more persons are employed, as the establishment io which the said Act shall apply with effect from the 31st day of October, 1964, The first petitioner can only be covered in the category (iv) mentioned above on the footing that it is an establishment of Engineers and Engineering contractors, who are not exclusively engaged in building and construction industry The case of the first petitioner and other petitioners, was that although the first petitioner ran an establishment of electrical contractors, nevertheless, the work done was exclusively confined to the building and construction industry. As stated in para No. 2 of the writ Petition, the sole activity of the petitioner was "to carry out electrical installation work in Government and semi-government buildings under construction." It was further stated that there was no difference between the nature of work carried out by the petitioner-firm and a firm of building contractors employed by the C.P.W.D. and the other Government authorities. The reason for this was also gives. It was stated:- "The work carried out by the Petitioner firm is an essential adjunct of building and construction work inasmuch as it consists of installations intended for providing beat, light and power in the buildings and is as such an Integral part of the budding and construction industry. Electrification of a modern building is carried out by means of in-laid system of wiring integrated with the cement, stone or brick structure and forms part of Its permanent fixtures." Thus, the case of the petitioner firm was that it was exclusively engaged in the building and construction industry. It is now necessary turn to the manner In which the controversy has come to from the subject-matter of the Writ Petition before me.
(3.) The regional Provident Fond Commissioner wrote to the Petitioner No. I on l6th December, 1964, that its establishment came in the category of Engineers and Engineering contractors, and hence the Act and the Scheme applied to it with effect from November, 1964. This position was contested by the first petitioner on the ground that theo firm was exclusively engaged in the building and construction industry. The second petitioner, which is an Association of Electrical Contractors also took up this matter and wrote to the Regional Provident Find Commissioner on 6tb January, 1965 staling that the workers employed by firms like the first petitioner were engaged purely on construction work and the length and terms of employment of the workers employed depended on the type of work required in any particular contract. The case of the Association apparently was that electrical contractors did not have permanent employees, but employees whose work depended on the nature of the contract secured and, hence the application of the Employees' Provident Funds Act was not practicable. A copy of the letter was send to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. The view of the Association was not accepted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The members of the Association also sought an interview with the Central Provident Fund Commissioner respondent No 2. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner apparently did not accept the contentions of the petitioner and insisted that the act was applicable to the first petitioner and the Scheme of the Provident Fund Act, 1952 should be implemented and contributions should be made failing which action would be taken. This led to the institution of the present Writ Petition.;