Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to rescind or withdraw certain orders made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West, Bengal, and the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, and to forbear from giving effect to such orders and also to cancel certain notices of demand issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act in Certificate Case No. 14 E. P. F. of 1954 and 1955 in the Court of Certificate Officer, 24 parganas.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies' Act. On 29th June 1950, a certificate of incorporation was granted by the Registrar of Joint Stock Company, West Bengal, and the petitioner commenced business from 31st July, 1950. The business of the petitioner company consists in the manufacture and dealing of all kinds of board paper and pulp including pulp board, card board and straw board etc. The petitioner holds licences under the West Bengal Factory Rules and on the 28th September, 1951, the Chief Inspector of Factories West Bengal, allotted a registration number to tfce petitioner company being No. 347-- T. P./X. By a deed of agreement dated the 12th October 1950, the petitioner purchased, machineries from India Paper and Board Mills company and by a deed of sale dated the 13th October, 1950 the petitioner purchased a one-storied brick built house with lands measuring about 17 bighas being premises No. 71 Satgachi Road at Dumdum in the district of 24 Parganas. On the 7th June, 1951 and 4th October, 1952 certain awards made by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of certain disputes between India Paper and Board Mills company and the petitioner company, and their employees represented by India Paper and Board Mills' workers' union, were published in the Calcutta Gazette and by such awards the petitioner company was treated as a new concern. By a letter dated the 15th October, 1952 written by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, the Managers of all factories in West Bengal to which the Employees' Provident Funds Act 1952 applies were directed to comply with the provisions of the paragraphs 33 and 36 (1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952. On the 10th November, 1953 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, addressed another letter to the Manager of the petitioner company pointing out that the petitioner's factory came within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Scheme framed thereunder, and the Manager was therefore requested to comply with the provisions of the scheme. On the 6th May 1954 the petitioner made an enquiry from the respondent No. 1 as to whether the contributions payable under the Employees Provident Funds Act were free from income-tax. On the 19th May 1954 the Accounts Officer, Provident Fund, informed the petitioner that the question of obtaining any concurrence of the Income Tax authorities did not arise in the case of the petitioner. On 11th June, 1954 the petitioner company made a representation to the respondent No. 1, requesting him to keep the question of contribution in abeyance as the petitioner company had remained closed for about four months from the 1st April, 1952. On the 15th June, 1954 the respondent no. 1 turned down this proposal. On the 10th July, 1954, the petitioner company was again informed by the Accounts Officer that the contributions and other charges for the period from 1st November 1952 to 31st March, 1954 had not been paid till then, by the petitioner company and the petitioner company was requested, to clear the arrears forthwith. On 7th August, 1954, the petitioner company made a further representation for keeping the question of contributions in abeyance on the ground that the petitioner had suffered financial loss and was therefore not in a position to pay the contributions and other charges as asked for. On the 31st August, 1954 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal informed the petitioner that no company could be granted exemption on the ground of financial stringency, and under Section 16 (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, it is only a class of factory which could be exempted on the grounds specified in Section 16 (2) of the Act. On 8th September, 1954, the petitioner company made a representation to the Deputy Minister, Labour Department, Government of India and on the same day the petitioner addressed another letter to the Deputy Minister praying for personal representation with all papers and documents, to prove the bona fides of the prayer made by the petitioner. It appears that on a complaint of the Provident Fund Inspector before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrack-pore, certain criminal proceedings were' started for contravention of the provisions of the E. P. F. Act and the scheme framed, thereunder, which was registered as Criminal Case No. C-776/27/36 of 1954. The said criminal case was started, for the petitioner company not submitting returns prescribed under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, and for not remitting the contributions and other charges payable in respect of the period from 1st November 1952 to 31st March 1954. In the meantime a certificate case was also started under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of a sum of Rs. 5505/- from the petitioner company. The petitioner filed objections thereto under Section 9 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. On the 2nd May 1955 the certificate officer rejected the application filed by the petitioner company under Section 9 on the ground that the application was time barred. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate 24-Parganas, Alipore, against the said order of the Certificate Officer dated the 2nd May 1955. On the 23rd June, 1935, the Additional Collector, 24 Parganas, allowed the appeal and sent back the records of the case to the Certificate Officer for consideration of the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act in accordance with law. In the meantime, on the 26th February 1955 the Under-Secretary to the Government of India informed the petitioner that under Section 16(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, exemption could be granted only to a class of factories and not to any individual factory. Thereafter, on the 28th November 1955 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 1, to allow the petitioner to pay the arrears of contributions by instalments but On the 2nd of March 1955 the respondent No. 1 wrote back regretting his inability to agree to the proposals for Instalments. On the 10th March 1955 the petitioner made a representation to the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, but on the 21st April 1955, the said representation was also turned down. Thereafter on the 22nd September, 1955 the petitioner made a representation to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, requesting the latter to withdraw the case against the petitioner. On the 6th October, 1955, the case which was remanded to the Certificate Officer by the appellate court was taken up for hearing and upon taking evidence the Certificate Officer came to the conclusion that the notice under Section 7 of the Act have been properly served and on that ground he rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner thereupon preferred another appeal against the said order of the Certificate Officer and such appeal came up for hearing on the 20th December, 1955. Various points were argued at the hearing of the appeal but the Additional District Magistrate allowed the appeal on the ground that notice under Section 7 was not properly served and the records of the case were again sent back to the Certificate Officer with a direction to issue a fresh notice under Section 7 of the Act. On the 22nd February 1956 the petitioner filed another objection under Section 9 of the Act after a fresh notice under Section 7 as directed by the appellate court had been served upon the petitioner Company. On the 23rd of March 1956, the petitioner's objection under Section 9 of the Act was heard in part and the ease was adjourned till 24th April 1958.
(3.) In the meantime on the 2nd December 1955 the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New. Delhi, informed the petitioner that the petitioner company could not be exempted from the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act as a mere change of ownership would not affect the date of the establishment of the factory for the purpose of the Act and the petitioner company was accordingly requested to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. On the 19th January 1956 a letter in the same strain was written by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to the petitioner. Thereafter certain further representations were made to the respondents but the respondents did not accede to such representations.;