- (1.) THE petitioner, a registered partnership firm, carrying on the business of cutting and processing of marbles at Makarana, District Nagpur, was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), by his letter dated 7th December, 1965, that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity "the P. F. Act"), and the scheme framed thereunder have been made applicable to the petitioner's business and further that, on making inquiries, the petitioner's establishment revealed to come under the scheduled head "electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering Products". Therefore, under the aforesaid letter (annexure 1), the petitioner was directed to deduct provident fund contribution from the wages of the eligible employees with effect from September, 1965 onwards. The petitioner contested the direction issued under annexure 1, and in its reply (annexure 2) to that, it stated that the Provident Funds Act was not applicable to its establishment because the strength of employees in the establishment was less than 20 persons, that they did not manufacture and produce any engineering products and, therefore, the coverage under the head "engineering and Engineering Products" does not arise and it is not covered by Schedule I to the Provident Funds Act; and that the Provident Fund Commissioner has wrongly counted the casual workers among the employees of its establishment in order to cover it in the scheme wrongly.
(2.) THE petitioner also moved the Secretary, Labour Department of the Government of India, under Section 19-A of the Provident Funds Act, and submitted that its department is not engaged in manufacturing electrical, mechanical and general engineering products as mentioned in Schedule I to the Provident Funds Act, that their main work is only of manufacturing marble products and cutting with processing of marble, and, therefore, such sort of work cannot be categorisd under Schedule I to the Provident Funds Act and the coverage, as reported by respondent No. 2, is arbitrary, wrong and against the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, and that the petitioner has not ever employed more than 20 employees.
(3.) THE Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated 1st February, 1968 (annexure 4), informed the petitioner that its establishment has been engaged in producing marble chips and tiles, there were 23 employees in the month of August, 1965, "piowala", cart driver and gardener were included as being engaged in the manufacturing process, and, therefore, according to the respondents, the establishment of the petitioner was treated to be coverable under the head "electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering Products". Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit their viewpoint within thirty days of receipt of the said letter (annexure 4 ).;