REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. MEKHLIPARA TEA COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment in view of the fact that an identical question of law arises in all the appeals and they all arise out of the same judgment.

(2.) The judgment of the Apex Court in Bridge and Roofs Company Limited has been further explained by the Apex Court in Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 117 FLR 358(SC) wherein it was held as follows:

(3.) The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is welfare legislation and must be given a purposive interpretation. Any ambiguous expression which can be interpreted in two-ways must be given a construction which is beneficial to the workmen. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Daily Pratap v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1998 80 FLR 894 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: