- (1.) The writ petition is at the instance of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority that challenges the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the compulsory applicability of the Employees' Provident Fund Act through the impugned order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He undertook an enquiry regarding the determination of the money due from the employers and held as untenable the plea of the petitioner that the Provident Fund Act of 1925 would not be applicable to the Authority in view of the Presidential assent to the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 (for short Act of 1972) that contained provisions for creation of Provident Fund. Provident fund itself being a subject falling within the concurrent list, the petitioner would be governed by their provisions prescribed under the Act of 1972 and the Central Government 1952 will not applicable. It was the contention on behalf of the Board that issuance of notification under Section 1(3) (b) of the 1952 Act was only an executive act in exercise of the delegated power and it must yield to the plenary legislation made by the State that it obtained through the Presidential assent on 06.01.1973. The notification cannot, therefore, repeal the existing State law. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Section 16 of the State Act, the State Act would continue to operate and prevail despite the inclusion of building and construction industry by the Central Government in Appendix I of the Central Act of 1952.
(2.) Through the impugned order, the Provident Fund Commissioner had reasoned that by virtue of Section 16 of the State Act of 1972, a provision had been made for constitution of a Provident Fund for the employees of the Board without, however, making any provision for the family pension and employees' deposit linked insurance benefits for its employees as envisaged in the Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. The Central Government 1952 provided for several claims and could be rightly called as the enactment occupying the field of Provident Fund and other social security measures tike the payment of family pension and deposit linked insurance benefits. The State Act, which was subsequently passed with the Presidential assent could not have repealed or eclipsed any portion of the Central Act of 1952 directly or by necessary implications. Section 16 of the Act of 1972 itself only referred to the Provident Fund Act of 1925 and made no reference to the 1952 Act. The 1952 Act itself underwent several amendment first by Act 40 of 1973 making general amendments in the Act and by Act 99 of 1976 incorporating the provision for the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme w.e.f. 1st August 1976 and then w.e.f. 31.10.1980, the addition of building and construction industry within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By a statutory notification made by the Central Government in its Official Gazette vide GSR No. 1069 dated 11.10.1980 applying the Act in the building and construction industry as well from 31.10.1980, the Act become fully operational in relation to other establishment, which was engaged in building and construction industry.
(3.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, therefore, decided against the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of the Central Act and had ordered that the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act for the purpose of assessment of the dues for the period 11/80 to 7/85 would continue. This order had been passed on 29.9.1987 and was brought for admission before this Court on 16.11.1987. The Court had ordered notice of motion but specifically observed that there shall be no stay for the present, it was again brought up for hearing on 9.2.1988 and the case stood admitted but the Court had observed that no recovery shall be made till the decision in the writ petition. By order of the Court, the cause title of the petition alone was directed to be changed as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority. At a later hearing before this Court on 25.4.2005, the representation had been that the Tribunal have been constituted and the issue has to be decided by an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act. The constitution of the Tribunal has been made by virtue of an amendment brought through Act 33 of 1988 that has come into effect on 01.07.1997. Since the amendment has come about subsequent to the institution of the writ petition, there was no exclusion of jurisdiction of this court.;