Skip to content


Manjunatha Setty M.L. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 1490, 1491 and 1492 of 1960
Judge
Reported in(1964)ILLJ697Kant
ActsEmployees' Provident Funds Act, 1952
AppellantManjunatha Setty M.L.
RespondentRegional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK. Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB. Venkataswami, Adv.
Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894.[c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 6 (1): [n.k. patil, j] final notification under petitioner sought for acquisition of land for the development educational activities failure of the petitioner to deposit the acquisition cost as required under the relevant statute non-compliance of the mandatory requirement held, the final notification shall be issued on or before the expiry of one year from the date of issuance of preliminary notification and the cost of acquisition is to be deposited before issuance of final notification. as the petitioner could not deposit the cost of the acquisition proceedings within the prescribed time, the proceedings has been delayed and notification under section 6(1) could not be issued before the expiry of one year from the date of..........point is divided. the madras high court in annamalai mudaliar and brothers v. regional provident fund commissioner, madras [1955 - i l.l.j. 674] has taken the view that in a dispute between the regional provident fund commissioner and the person who is said to be liable to contribute to the fund, the same should be decided only by the central government under s. 19a the patna high court in bankim chandra chakravarti and another v. regional provident fund commissioner and other [1958 - ii l.l.j. 444] took a contrary view. that court was of the opinion that unless the regional provident fund commissioner felt any doubt or difficulty and referred the doubt or difficulty to central government, the central government is not required to decide any matter. it took the view that the question.....
Judgment:

1. These petitions are filed by the same petitioner. They raise a common question of law.

2. The petitioner is the owner of three coffee estates in Chickmagalur district. Respondent 3, the provident fund inspector, has called upon him to contribute to the employees' provident fund. The petitioner has disputed his liability to contribute to that fund. The objection of the petitioner is that in none of his estates he has been employing fifty or more persons and, therefore, for the period from 1957 to end of 1960 he is not liable to contribute to the fund. The question whether the petitioner had employed fifty or more persons during the relevant period does not appear to have been decided by any of the authorities. That was undoubtedly a point in dispute between the petitioner and respondent 3. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent 1 shows that respondent 1 had decided that question; but, his conclusion has not been recorded, though orally informed to the petitioner. It is difficult to believe that any statutory authority would take an oral decision and fail to record the same. From the correspondence that passed between the respondents and the petitioner and placed before us, it is clear that the parties were at issue on the question whether the petitioner employed fifty or more persons in his several estates. Our attention has not been invited to any record in the case showing that at any time any of the respondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been employing fifty or more persons in any of his estates. Unless the petitioner had been employing, during the relevant period, fifty or more persons in each of his estates, the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, would not be applicable. Therefore, it is necessary for the authorities first to decide the question whether the petitioner is liable to contribute to the employees' provident fund. It is unnecessary at this stage to decide as to who is the proper authority to decide that question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the question has to be determined by respondent 3. But, according to the petitioner, if there is dispute as regards the number of persons employed, then that dispute should be decided by the Central Government under S. 19A. The judicial opinion on this point is divided. The Madras High Court in Annamalai Mudaliar and Brothers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras [1955 - I L.L.J. 674] has taken the view that in a dispute between the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the person who is said to be liable to contribute to the fund, the same should be decided only by the Central Government under S. 19A The Patna High Court in Bankim Chandra Chakravarti and another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and other [1958 - II L.L.J. 444] took a contrary view. That Court was of the opinion that unless the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner felt any doubt or difficulty and referred the doubt or difficulty to Central Government, the Central Government is not required to decide any matter. It took the view that the question whether in a given case the provision of the Provident Fund Act are applicable, is a matter primarily to be decided by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide which one of the two views is the correct view. Suffice it to say that in the instant case, neither the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner nor the Central Government has decided the controversy between the petitioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. That being so, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot take any coercive steps against the petitioner to realize the sums said to be due from him as contribution to the fund.

3. Various other controversies were raised before us. We have not decided any one of those controversies. Those controversies will be decided if and when occasion arises.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, we hereby direct the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner for the realization of the sums said to be due from him to the provident fund unless and the question whether during the relevant period he had been employing fifty or more persons, is decided.

5. In these petitions, the parties will bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //