Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge on this Court.
(2.) MESSRS . Free India Industries, Respondent No. 1 were carrying on the business of body building on the Chassis of buses and trucks in Jullundur City. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Appellant No. 1 made demands from them for the payment of the provident fund under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the firm denied its liability to pay this amount despite repeated reminders, Appellant No. 1 started prosecution proceedings against them under Section 14 of the Act in the Court of Shri (Mar Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur. Thereupon, the firm filed a writ petition in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing Appellant No. 1 and the State of Punjab Appellant No. 2, not to enforce the provisions of this Act against Respondent No. 1 and Rattan Singh, Manager or this firm, Respondent No. 2, and not to prosecute them. It was also prayed that the proceedings pending: in the Court of Shri Onkar Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, be quashed. The firm alleged that the business, which was carried on by them, was merely in the nature of carpentry work and was not covered by the provisions of this Act. It was also alleged that Section 5 of the Act was ultra vires of the Constitution inasmuch as the power on deciding which industry would be covered by the provisions of the Act was left entirely in the hands of We Executive. This Section was repugnant to Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. In the return filed by Appellant No. l, it was denied that the process of building of bodies on the chassis merely involved carpentry work it was asserted that the business carried on by the Respondents was covered by the provisions of the Act. It was stated that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act were intended to promote social welfare and were not ultra vires of the Constitution.
(3.) TWO points were argued before the learned single Judge (1) that Section 5 of the Act was ultra vires of the Constitution and (2) that the business of the firm did not fall within the industries covered by the Act. AS regards the first point, the learned Judges held that since this Court had in a number of cases decided that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act were intra vires of the Constitution, it was not open for him to go into thus question afresh. With regard to the second point, it was held that since the business carried cm by the Respondents involved merely carpentry work, it could not be categorised as 'manufacture of engineering products. Consequently, it was not possible to say that it was an "industry which was engaged in the manufacture of electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" and the provisions of the Act applied to the same. On these findings, the learned Judge accepted the petition and quashed the orders of Appellant No. 1 calling upon the firm to make contributions under the Act.;