PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) SHORT dispute involved in this petition relates to non -payment of provident fund to the workers/employees of respondent No. 1 -Authority, Petitioner is a registered Trade Union with its Registration No. 2216. It is stated that as many as 2732 employees are on its roll, as its members. Respondent No. 1 -Authority had been making deduction from the emoluments of the workmen, who are members of the petitioner union, as contribution towards the provident fund. However, the amount was not deposited in provident fund account and hence no provident fund is being released to the employees even after the retirement, as also to such serving employees, who are needy and required the amount.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 -Authority in its counter affidavit has taken a specific stand that the Authority was constituted under the provisions of Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority Act, 1986 and prior to the coming into operation of the said Act, development works/municipal works in the districts of Dhanbad and area of Bokaro district were being managed and controlled under the provisions of enactment like Jhario Water Supply Act, 1914 and Bihar and Orissa Mining Settlements Act 1920. These enactments were repealed by virtue of Section 132 of the Act of 1986. This Act also provides non -abstante clause wherein actions including bye laws and regulations issued under various enactments repealed by new Act are saved. It is, accordingly stated that provident fund was being managed by respondent No. 1 -Authority in accordance with Notification No. 3229 dated 18th October, 1921 issued under Section 46 of the Jharia Water Supply Act, 1914. Similar provisions was existing under Section 13(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Mining Settlements Act, 1920 for gratuity and provident fund of the employees of Jharia Water Board and Mines Board. It is, accordingly, stated that after the Authority came to be constituted contribution of GPF continued to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act and authority is not under any obligation to deposit the amount in Provident Fund Account. Respondent No. 1 -Authority, however, has not disputed its liability towards the employees, who have contributed towards the provident fund. Only hassle projected by the respondents for non -payment of the provident fund to the employees is the financial crunch with the Authority. It is further stated that as and when any employee approaches the Authority for payment of the provident fund, same is paid to him. It is also stated that respondent No. 1 -Authority is under the control of the State Government and as and when Jharkhand State pays the amount to the Authority, the amount will be released to the employees.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.;