Page 117 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Mercantile Laws – II

Notes Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra State, is
directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1965 of the Bombay High
Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1964 filed by the respondent company
under Art. 226 of the Constitution and quashing the notice of demand dated May 22, 1963
issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The circumstances under which
the writ petition was filed by the respondent may be stated: The respondent a limited
company having its Head Office at Ogalawadi in Satara District was manufacturing at the
relevant time Glassware, Stoves, Lanterns and Enamel wares. It had several sections in its
factory, namely, (1) Glass Manufacturing Section, (2) Lantern and Safety Stoves Section,
(3) Enamel Section, (4) General Section and (5) Canteen Section. n 1951 the Provident Fund
Scheme was amended and the Company agreed to make contributions to the fund only if
it made profits. There is no controversy that the Act was made applicable to the respondent
on October 6, 1952 and the Company had been paying its contribution to the Employees
Provident Fund from November 1, 1952. For the purpose of the Fund, a scheme had been
framed under the Act. According to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the Act
and the Scheme framed thereunder applied to the entire body of employees working
under the respondent. Though the Company then raised objections on the ground that
only the employees in the Lantern and Stoves Section were covered by the Scheme and
that it was bound to make contributions only in respect of those employees, nevertheless,
the Company continued to make its share of contribution to the Provident Fund even in
respect of other employees working in other sections.
In the meanwhile, another establishment in the area, the Nagpur Glass Works, which was
carrying on a business similar to that of the respondent company, filed a writ petition
before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Question
Critically analyse the above case.

Source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/docfragment/525458/?formInput=employees%20provident%20
fund%20act%201952%20doctypes%3A%20supremecourt

6.8 Summary

 The EPF Act in India also known as the EPF Act, 1952 or the Employees’ Provident Fund
Scheme 1952 is a provision for securing the right to work, education, unemployment, old
age, sickness & disablement needs to be made by every state in India.

 To secure the well-being of the employees in times of distress, the EPF Act in India was
formulated.

 The Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is enacted to
provide a kind of social security to the industrial workers.
 The Act mainly provides retirement or old age benefits, such as Provident Fund,
Superannuation Pension, Invalidation Pension, Family Pension and Deposit Linked
Insurance.
 Provision for terminal benefit of restricted nature was made in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, in the form of payment of retrenchment compensation. But this benefit is not
available to a worker on retirement, on reaching the age of superannuation or voluntary
retirement.
 The Employees’ Provident Funds Act is intended to provide wider terminal benefits to
the industrial workers.

112 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY