Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This ia an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur, not to take action under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act of 1952 and the Employees Provident Funds Amendment Act of 1953 against the applicant.
(2.) The petitioner was registered as a public limited company in the year 1948 to work on an electro plating pattern, colour and chrome plating plant in India. The electroplating plant was imported and installed in Allahabad and the factory was started in October, 1950 on a trial basis. The real production, according to the petitioner, started from January, 1951. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is alleged that since the date of its establishment, the factory has been experimenting with one kind of thing or the other to find out as to what they could produce profitably and the work continued on an experimental basis. After some time of the starting of the factory, they took to the production of metal cases of torches along with the electroplating work and consequently the numer of workers had been increased. In 1952 the Employees Provident Funds Act was enacted and the petitioner company was asked to bring the industry under the provisions of the above Act. The petitioner challenged the application of the aforesaid Act to the Company. A writ petition was filed in this Court which was numbered as writ petition No. 578 of 1953. It was admitted on 1953. Subsequently certain negotiations for compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party were started. They came to some arrangement and in view of that arrangement, the writ petition was not pressed and was dismissed on 2-12-1954. Subsequently, however, the arrangement fell through. There was certain condition imposed by the opposite party which was regarded by the petitioner as unreasonable. If the Act is made applicable to the petitioner, they have to pay a large sum of administration charges to the opposite-party and that is likely to result into a great burden on the industry. The petitioner informed the opposite party that they did not come under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act of 1952 as well as the Employees Provident Funds Amendment Act of 1953 but the opposite-party still insisted and, according to their contention, the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Act. The opposite-party has threatened to take action against the petitioner factory if they did not comply with the demand of the opposite-party for payment of all accumulations since November, 1952 together with administration charges of 3 per cent. The Geep Worker's Union, which represented the workers of the petitioner industry, also filed a writ petition (No. 369 of 1955) on 15-4-1955 which has since been disposed of. On these facts the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Notice was issued to the opposite party. A counter-affidavit has been filed. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the factory was registered under the Factories Act for metal galvanising, turning, lacquer painting, plating and enamelling and they started manufacturing in the year 1949. In November, 1952, they were employing more than 60 persons when the Employees' Provident Funds Act was applied to the factory. The employees are engaged in cutting, shaping, grounding and soldering brass and iron sheets to prepare torches and its various parts for which purpose machineries, viz. hand pressing machines, power press machines, shaping machines grinding stone, rolling machine, spinning lathes, soldering machines, polishing machines and sheet cutting machines are installed in the factory. It is stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit that the factory has been manufacturing electrical, mechanical and general engineering products, e.g. electroplated cutlery, electroplating cycle parts, torches & electroplated E.P.N.S. goods on commercial basis since it started in 1949. The number of workers employed by them in 1952 was more than 50, which fact the petitioner had disclosed in form 4 submitted to Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., Kanpur. Subsequently, they started manufacturing and electroplating torch shells, torch parts and torches. It is disputed by the opposite-party that the petitioner factory is not covered by the Employees Provident Funds Act of 1952 as well as the Employees Provident Funds (Amendment) Act, 1953 and the scheme framed thereunder. The petitioner proposed to make suitable amendments in their own Employees' Provident Fund Scheme with the object of seeking exemption under Section 17(1) (a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. Since the proposed amendments did not bring their own scheme in line with the provisions of the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder by the Government, their request for exemption under Section 17(1)(a) of the said Act was rejected.;