CONSOLIDATED CROP PROTECTION PVT LTD Vs. V HEMA CHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short question arises in this petition as to the correct meaning of S. 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the "Provident Fund Act").

(2.) Very few facts which deserve to be noted and which do not seem to be in dispute are these : The Provident Fund Act became applicable some time in the year 1952. The petitioners had their factory at Santacruz and the head office at Tarabaug Estate, Charni Road, Bombay. The Provident Fund Act was obviously applicable to the factory and the head office of the petitioners. The petitioner-company, however, applied on June 24, 1964, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for exemption from the statutory scheme of 1952 because they had their own voluntary Provident Fund Scheme, which was more beneficial to the employees at both the places. It was pointed out that the contribution of the employees was 12 1/2 per cent and that of the employers was 10 per cent of the total wages under the voluntary Provident Fund Scheme. As the rates at which contributions required to be made under the statutory scheme were only 8 per cent on either side, it was obvious that voluntary schemed was more beneficial to the employees. Exemption was thus granted by letter dated May 29, 1966, with effect from July 1, 1964.

(3.) A similar order recognizing the scheme was passed by the Income-tax Commissioner by his letter dated March 15, 1966. To that voluntary scheme the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner allotted a number as being No. MH/5651 and the payments were continued as per the voluntary scheme.