Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: employees provident fund act 1952 Page 1 of about 55,286 results (0.219 seconds)

Nov 26 1959 (HC)

The Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1961Bom157; (1960)62BOMLR425; [1960(1)FLR63]; ILR1960Bom580

..... the case before the calcutta high court, the government had passed an order under section 19-a of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, to the following effect: '....your factory will come under the purview of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder with effect from 1st november 1952..... 'as regards payment of contributions for the pre-discovery period (i.e., from 1st november 1953 to 31st ..... 1(3)(a) of the act provides that subject to the provisions contained in section 16, the act applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in ..... he referred to sections 5, 6, and 15 of the provident funds act and also to paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the provident fund scheme. in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by mr. phadke it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 (act no. xix of 1952 which will hereafter be called the act') and the scheme that was framed thereunder. 6. section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1956 (HC)

The State Vs. Hathiwala Textile Mills and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1957Bom209; (1957)59BOMLR184; 1957CriLJ957; ILR1957Bom358; (1957)IILLJ202Bom

..... just delivered. i desire to add a few words. the sole question in this appeal is whether respondent no, 1 factory is governed by the provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. that question has to be answered by reference to section 1(3). two interpretations are suggested with regard to section 1(3). the learned additional assistant government pleader ..... on behalf of the state.4. now, the short point which calls for consideration in this appeal is as to the construction of section 1(3) of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and that reads as follows :'subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies in the first instance to all factories engaged in any industry specified in schedule ..... therefore, not liable.3. the case was tried in a summary way and the learned special judicial magistrate, first class. surat. came to the conclusion that the employees' provident funds act, 1952, and the scheme thereunder were not applicable to the factory of hathiwala textile mills on the dates of the alleged offences because the number of workers in the mills was ..... custody of receivers. as the employers had failed to comply with the provisions of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952, a complaint was filed against them and they were charged with offences under paragraphs 76 (a) and (c) of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952, read with section 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1,952.2. now the facts, which are stated above, were not disputed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1959 (HC)

Pamadi Subbarama Chetti Vs. Mirza Zawar Ali

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (1959)IILLJ524Kant

..... the petitioner was entitled for exemption from the operation of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. he, therefore, approached the provident fund commissioner in mysore to obtain sanction of the government for proceeding against the petitioner under s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, and para. 76 of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952. the regional provident fund commissioner accordingly wrote to the government and obtained the sanction to ..... was accordingly placed by the respondent against the petitioner before the city magistrate, bangalore, for an offence under para. 76 of the employees' provident fund scheme, 1952, read with s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. the petitioner who appeared before the magistrate in response to the notice pleaded not guilty to the charge which was read over and ..... petitioner was liable to answer a charge for having failed to contribute towards the provident fund of the employees and the administrative charges and to submit the returns under para. 76 of the employees' provident fund scheme read with s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. in the state of the evidence on record the conviction of the petitioner cannot ..... upon the petitioner by means of a notice to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken against him under s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, and para. 76 of the scheme framed thereunder for having failed to submit returns in forms nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1959 (HC)

Pamadi Subbarama Chetty Vs. Mirza Zewar Ali

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Mys14; 1960CriLJ253; ILR1959KAR529

..... the petitioner was entitled for exemption from the operation of the employees provident funds act, 1952. he, therefore, approached the provident fund commissioner in mysore to obtain sanction of the government for proceeding against the petitioner under s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and paragraph 76 of the employee' provident funds scheme, 1952.the regional provident fund commissioner accordingly, wrote to the government and obtained the sanction ..... was accordingly placed by the respondent against the petitioner before the city magistrate, bangalore for an offence under paragraph 76 of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952 read with s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. the petitioner who appeared before the magistrate in response to the notice pleaded not guilty to the charge which was read over ..... to answer a charge for having failed to contribute towards the provident fund of the employees and the administrative charges and the employees and the administrative charges and to submit the returns under paragraph 76 of the employees' provident funds scheme read with s. 14 of the employees, provident funds act, 1952. in the state of the evidence on record the conviction ..... the petitioner by means of a notice to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken against him under s. 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and paragraph 76 of the scheme framed thereunder for having failed to submit returns in forms nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1956 (HC)

Great Eastern Electroplaters, Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commr., ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1956All495; (1957)IILLJ225All

..... the opposite-party that the petitioner factory is not covered by the employees provident funds act of 1952 as well as the employees provident funds (amendment) act, 1953 and the scheme framed thereunder. the petitioner proposed to make suitable amendments in their own employees' provident fund scheme with the object of seeking exemption under section 17(1)(a) of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. since the proposed amendments did not bring their own scheme in line ..... . lastly, it was contended that the applicant factory is an infant factory and under the provisions of section 16, employees provident funds act, 1952, that is exempt from the operation of the act.6. section 1(3) of the employees provident funds, 1952 provides that the act applies, in the first instance, to all factories engaged in any industry specified in schedule i in which 50 or more persons are employed. this ..... of the counsel for the opposite-party is that the applicant factory is engaged in the manufacture or production of electrical or mechanical products. by the amending act of 1953, certain provisions of the employees provident funds act, 1952 were amended and the words 'or production' have been omitted from the opening words of the schedule and the following explanation added to the schedule :--'explanation: in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1960 (HC)

Kokkalai Rice and Oil Mills Foundry, Etc. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1961Ker57; (1960)IILLJ528Ker; (1960)IILLJ528Ker

..... 5 and 11, held that the said words govern or qualify the phrase 'industry specified in schedule i' and not the word 'factories'.8. section 1(3) of the employees' provident funds act 1952, before its amendment in 1956, read as follows :--'subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies in the first instance to all factories engaged in any industry specified ..... apply to the instant factory. applying these tests, we find that the factory in this case is well within the ambit of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and that the appellant, employer, was therefore liable to make his contributions as required in the notices impugned in this case.13. the next question is whether the ..... several departments in the same premises, if some of the departments only are covered by the employees' provident funds act, 1952, the entire establishment will fall within the coverage of the act. therefore if fifty or more persons are employed in the entire establishment, it will be covered by the act. you are, therefore, requested to comply with the instructions issued in this office letter. .. ..... as to the scope of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as 'the act').2. the appellant is the owner of a factory at kokkalai, trichur, where several industries like rice and oil mills, foundry and engineering works, and soap works are carried on; and the respondent is the regional provident funds commissioner, trivandrum.3. on 31-10-1952 the respondent issued a letter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1966 (HC)

Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. Vs. Prafullachandra ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1967Bom126; (1966)68BOMLR689; 1967CriLJ605; [1967(14)FLR212]; (1967)ILLJ153Bom

..... punishable under paragraph 76 (e) of the scheme. the sanction further reads;'now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 14 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, (xix of 1952), read with government notification . . . . . . i, bhagwant vasant laud, under secretary to the government of maharashtra . . . . hereby accord previous sanction to the making of the necessary ..... appear to be a part of the act, but is a compilation of the various notifications issued from time to time by the government bringing ..... industries stated to be covered by section 1(3)(a) of the act. for this purpose, a strong reliance has been placed on the word 'non-factory' used in the heading in appendix 1 at page 22 of the publication. the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and the employees provident fund scheme, 1952 with short notes by the eastern book company. this appendix does not ..... the various industries within the purview of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. the word 'non-factory' used in this heading in appendix i, therefore, will not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1958 (HC)

India United Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1385; (1959)IILLJ733Bom

..... contended that no amount is payable under the employees' provident funds act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder by way of provident fund contribution in respect of such payment. 6. in order to decide when contribution is payable under the employees' provident funds act, 1952, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. section 6 of the act provides as under : 'the contribution which shall be ..... paid by the employer to the fund shall be six and a quarter per cent of the basic wages and the ..... case of an operative and 'pay' in the case of a clerk and that the amounts so paid are amounts in respect whereof provident fund contribution is payable under the provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. 5. on the other hand it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that wages or pay represent the consideration which is ..... declined to pay the same. the amounts claimed were sought to be recovered from the petitioner-company by the coercive machinery available under s. 8 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. the petitioner-company has challenged the action of the authorities in requiring payment of the said amounts and in seeking to recover the same. 2. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1987 (HC)

Om Wati Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1987]61CompCas801(Delhi)

..... accepted in view of the legislative history. the provident funds act was passed in 1925 but when the employees' provident funds act, 1952, was passed, the legislature was naturally aware of section 5 of the provident funds act, 1925. in fact, the objects and reasons of the 1952 act make it clear that the provident funds act, 1925, was very much within the awareness of the legislature. the employees' provident funds act, 1952, is a special provision for the benefit of ..... for the petitioner has raised an interesting question of law as to the rights of the nominee under the scheme framed under the employees' provident funds act, 1952. chapter 8 of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952, provides for nominations, payments and withdrawals from the provident fund. para 61 provides for nomination which reads as follows : '61. nomination. - (1) each member shall make in his declaration in form 2, a nomination conferring the ..... the employees in factories and similar establishments as contemplated by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 1968 (HC)

United Mercantile Co. (P) Ltd., Calicut Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1969Ker227

..... above provision shows that the statute itself has made an effective arrangement to deduct tax at the source, when amounts are paid to employees out of an accumulated provident fund transferred to the central board under the employees' provident funds act. 1952. in such a case, there is no scope for the application of section 58-k of the 1922act or rule 14 in part ..... learned counsel invited our attention to section 5 of the employees' provident funds act, 1952. sub-section (1) empowers the central government to frame a scheme to be called the employees' provident fund scheme for the establishment of provident funds for the employees of industrial and other establishments, and to establish a fund in accordance with the provisions of this act and the scheme. sub-section (1-a) of section ..... the employer. it follows, therefore, that rule 14 (1) would not apply to a transfer of the provident fund by operation of the provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952 and the scheme made thereunder in trust to the trustees created under the said act.5. the assessee's learned counsel referred us to a division bench decision of the high court of bombay ..... circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of rs. 18,578 transferred by the assessee to the provident fund commissioner under the provisions of the employees' provident funds act, 1952, was a capital expenditure within the meaning of rule 14 (1) of part a of the 4th schedule of income-tax .....

Tag this Judgment!


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