Page 104 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Unit 6: Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952

secretary to the Central Board of Trustees. He is assisted by the Regional Provident Fund Notes
Commissioner, one in each state and in Delhi.

Example: The regional communities advise the Central Board on matters connected
with the administration of the scheme in their respective States. Sub-regional provident fund
offices have been opened in some region’s to render better services to the subscribers of the
fund.

Provident fund inspectors are appointed to carry out inspections and to-perform an advisory
role vis-a-vis the employers and workers in. different covered establishments. They conduct
surveys to ensure that all coverable establishment/factories are covered under the Act. They
also recommend and file prosecutions in the courts against defaulting employers and pursue
these cases till their final disposal.



Caselet The Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Co. vs.
The Textile Labour on 17th March, 1960

ndustrial Dispute—Claim of gratuity by workmen in textile industry—Framing of
scheme in modification of Previous award Validity—Gratuity, if in the nature of
Iprofit bonus—Applicability of Full Bench formula—Duty of Industrial Court—Bombay
Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. XI of 1947), s. 116A—Employees Provident Funds
Act, 1952 (XIX of 1952).
This was an appeal by certain textile mills of Ahmedabad against a scheme for gratuity
awarded by the Industrial Court. The Labour Association, the respondent, gave a notice of
change under s. 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. XI of 1947),
intimating the Mill Owners’ Association that they wanted a scheme for gratuity and
mentioned four categories of termination of service in the annexure. This demand was
refused and so referred to the Industrial Court under s. 73A of the Act. Pending the reference
the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), came into operation and the
Industrial Court, on an objection by the Mill Owners’ Association, held that it was
inadvisable to proceed with the reference and that a fresh application should be made, if
necessary, after the scheme envisaged by the Act is introduced.

A scheme for gratuity is by its nature an integrated scheme and covers all classes of
termination of service where gratuity benefit can be legitimately claimed and the refusal
of the Industrial Court in the earlier award amounted to a refusal to frame any scheme at
all. The statutory provident fund created by the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952,
could be no bar to the respondent’s claim for a gratuity scheme although there can be no
doubt that in awarding such a scheme Industrial Courts must make due allowance for it.
Provisions of s. 17 of the said Act clearly indicate that the statutory benefits under the Act are
the minimum to which the employees are entitled and that they are no bar to additional
benefits claimed by the employees. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1960] 2 SCR
32, referred to. It was not correct to say that the claim for gratuity was essentially similar
to a claim for profit bonus and must always be considered on unit wise basis.

The benefit of gratuity is in the nature of a retrial thus made was not accepted by the
Association, and so it was referred to the Industrial Court. Pending the reference
the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), came into operation on March
4, 1952, and it was urged before the Industrial Court on behalf of the Association that since
Contd....

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 99