SUNDARA RAO B Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the period between 20 April, 1964 and 1965, the petitioner was conducting a canteen known as the bar association canteen in the premises of the bar association of Bangalore. It is undisputed that he operated that canteen under an agreement between the bar association and himself. On 15 January, 1965, the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informed the petitioner that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder were applicable to the petitioner's establishment in which he had employed twenty or more persons and that he should therefore submit returns under the Act. On 19 May, 1965, he was again informed that he should expedite dispatch of the returns and the remittance of the amounts which he was bound to contribute. Again on 22 May, 1965, a show-cause notice was issued to him that since there was a failure to remit the provident fund contribution and administration charges and failure to submit revised returns for the period between January and April 1965 he should show cause why action should not be taken against him under S. 14 of the Act and Para. 75 of the scheme framed thereunder.

(2.) In this writ petition which is a sequel to the application of the provisions of the Act to the petitioner's establishment in this way, there are at least two prayers. The first is that we should quash the communication addressed to the petitioner by the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner on 15 January, 1965, through which there was an application of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the scheme prepared thereunder to the petitioner's establishment. The second is that we should direct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to desist from enforcing the order made by him on 15 January, 1965 and the communications sent on 19 May, 1965 and 22 May, 1965, to which we have already referred.

(3.) Two submissions were made before us by Sri Krishnamurthi appearing for the petitioner. The first is that in his establishment there were not as many as twenty employees during the relevant period and so the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act became inapplicable. The second is that in any event since a period of five years had not expired from the day on which the petitioner's establishment had been set up, that establishment was excepted from out of the Act by S. 16(1)(b) of the Act.