SILVER STORM AMUSEMENT PARKS PVT. LTD. Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, THRISSUR AND ANOTHER
LAWS(KER)-2003-7-78
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 15,2003

Silver Storm Amusement Parks Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Thrissur And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -Silver Storm Amusement Parks Private Limited filed this original petition challenging Exts P3 and P4 orders passed by the respondent. The Employees Provident Fund Authorities making the Amusement Parks "Silver Storm Water Theme Park" within the coverage of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short to be referred as the E.P.F., Act). The only question for consideration is whether the amusement park, viz., Silver Storm Water Theme Park would be an establishment within the Notification GSR 728 dated 3.5.1963 issued by the Government of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amusement park would not come within the ambit of the above notification dated 3.5.1963 and as such the Employees Provident Fund Authorities are not competent to bring in the above establishment within the coverage of the Employees Provident Fund Act. The notification includes establishments coming under the following three categories: 1. Theatres where dramatic performances or other forms of entertainment are held and where payment is required to be made for admission as audience or spectators. 2.SOCIETIES , clubs or associations which provide board or lodging or both or facility for amusement or any other service to any of their members or to any of their quests on payment. Companies, societies, associations, clubs or troupes which give any exhibition of acrobatic or other performances or both, in any arena, circular or otherwise or perform or permit any other form of entertainment in any place, other than a theatre and require payment for admission into such exhibition or entertainment as spectators or audience.
(2.) Admittedly, the above establishment viz., an amusement park would not come within the definition of Clause (1) and (2). According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the amusement parks would not come within Clause (3) also. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amusement parks also would come within the ambit of Clause (3) as it was an establishment for entertainment where there were entertainment as well as facilities for amusements to have entertainment by utilising such facilities. It was further submitted that the E.P.F. Act is a social legislation for the welfare of the employees and all categories of employees should have the advantage of the scheme under the Employees' Provident Fund Act. The E.P.F. Act being a welfare legislation. It may not be fair or proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above notification. The object was for bringing in all sports of entertainment's within the ambit of the E.P.F. Act if the number of employees employed there were above the prescribed minimum. Though the word amusement parks are not mentioned in Clause (3) of the Notification an amusement park would come within the definition of the establishment mentioned in Clause (9) as being a place of entertainment where people gather for entertainment as well as amusements. Hence, the proceedings initiated by the Provident Fund Authorities was in accordance with law and the above establishment also would come within the coverage of Employees Provident Fund Act. I find no reasons to interfere with Exts. P3 and P4 orders passed by the E.P.F. authorities and this original petition has only to be dismissed. In the result this original petition is dismissed.;


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