Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Zila Sahkari Federation Ltd., the Petitioner is a Co -operative Society, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. In 1952 the Petitioner introduced a scheme of contributory provident fund for the benefit of its employees. On 26 -7 -1968 the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, No. XI of 1965 came into force after it had received the assent of the President of India on 4 -3 -1966.
(2.) THE Provident Fund Inspector under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 impeded the Petitioner's establishment. In his report he stated that the Petitioner's employee were more than 50 in number, it had completed three years of its effeteness and it was liable to make contribution under and in accordance with the scheme framed under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. Accordingly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a direction to the Society to submit the requisite returns so that the appropriate contribution may ,be assessed. The Petitioner made a representation, inter alia, stating that this Central Act was not applicable: to the Society. It also made an application ion being granted exemption from the provisions of this Act Under Section 17(1) thereof. The Regional Provident Fund Commr. found that the Petitioner society was misusing, provident fund moneys of the workers by utilising them in their business. After hearing the representative of the Petitioner it assessed the contribution payable by the Petitioner society and directed it to pay the amount so assessed. Aggrieved, the Petitioner Society filed a representation before the Govt. of India. Unfortunately the Govt. of India has not yet decided it. Meanwhile the authorities initiated proceedings for recovery of the assessed amount as arrears of land revenue. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that in view of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, in so far as it makes provision for compulsory provident fund, will apply and prevail over the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. It is also urged that there is no notification applying the provisions of the 1952 Act to co -operative societies.
(3.) ARTICLE 251(2) provides: 254 (2). Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters, enumerated in the concurrent list contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. Article 246(2) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament and subject to Clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule in this Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List". Thus, the State Legislature has the power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the "Concurrent List". Entry 24 of this Concurrent List provides for the welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers' liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefit. Thus the subject matter of provident fund can be legislated upon both by the State Legislature as well as by Parliament.;