2004 Supreme(SC) 297

2004(3) Supreme 190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 59 of 2001
Decided on 11-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Anil B. Dewan, Sr. Advocate, B. Raghavan, Ms. Nina Gupta, Mrs. Vanita Bhargav, Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, S.W.A. Qadri, B.V. Balram Das, Advocates.
For the Intervenor : Arun Kathpalia, Amit Dhupar, Anant Kumar, Pradeep K. Baskhi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Paragraph 80(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, whereby the employees of newspaper industry, for the purposes of provident fund scheme, do not fall in the category of excluded employees despite their pay being above prescribed amount as notified by Government of India from time to time, cannot be held as arbitrary.

Headnote:Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952-Sections 2(f) and 5-Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955-Sections 2 and 15-Constitution of India-Articles 14, 19 and 32-Provident Fund Scheme-Special provisions in case of newspaper establishments and employees-Newspaper establishments and employees do not come in the category of excluded employee -Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging constitutionality of paragraph 80(2) of the Scheme-Since 1956, income ceiling has not been applied to employees of newspaper establishments-Irrespective of pay, all such employees are entitled to benefit of the scheme-Petitioners case that there is no valid classification to split the employees into newspaper organizations and non-newspaper organizations for different and discriminatory treatment in the matter of Provident Fund Contribution-It has been contended that the extent of financial power available to newspaper industry is much less than many other industries-Whether this benefit given to employees of newspaper industry can be challenged at this stage after lapse of so many years by only one of the newspaper establishments in the country-Held, no.

       Held : The mere fact that the similar benefit even after lapse of about half a century has not been given to the employees of other industries will not make the benefit given to the newspaper industry discriminatory. The principle that a provision which may be constitutional when enacted may become unconstitutional later due to changed scenario, has no applicability whatsoever to the present case. Undoubtedly, the classification cannot be arbitrary. It has to be rational and must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia. There is no difficulty in accepting these principles relied upon by Mr. Dewan. The difficulties generally do not arise in formation of principles under Article 14. But at times, difficulties do arise in the application of such principles to concrete cases. We may also notice the aspect of long delay in laying challenge to the validity of the impugned provisions. No hard and fast principle can be laid down that under no circumstances delay would be a relevant consideration in judging constitutional validity of a provision. It has to be remembered that the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is discretionary. In one case, this Court may decline discretionary relief if person aggrieved has slept over for long number of years. In another case, depending upon the nature of violation, court may ignore delay and pronounce upon the invalidity of a provision. (Paras 24 to 26)

       In the present case, there is no satisfactory explanation for delay of over forty five years. The petition can be rejected by declining to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners only on this count. Further, as already noticed, a provision though constitutional when enacted, may with passage of time become unconstitutional, but the said principle has no applicability to the present case. The contention here is that the impugned provision was unconstitutional from its inception in the year 1956 since there was never any legal basis for classification of newspaper establishments as a separate class. (Para 28)

       The definition of newspaper employee takes into its fold all the employees who are employed to do any work in, or relation to, any newspaper establishment. The decision in Express Newspaper s case amply answers the main contention about the Press Industry having been singled out, against the petitioners. This decision also holds that to provide social welfare legislation and grant benefit, a beginning had to be made somewhere without embarking on similar legislation in relation to other industries. The fact that even after about half a century similar benefit has not been extended to the employees of any other industry, will not result in invalidation of benefit given to employees of press industry. It is not for us to decide when, if at all, to extend the benefit to others. In view of aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention that the impugned provision is violative of Article 14 on the ground that it singles out newspaper industry by excluding income test only in regard to the said industry. Apart from the fact that it may not be always possible to grant to everyone all benefits in one go at the same time, it seems that the impugned provision and the enacting of the Working Journalists Act was part of a package deal and that probably is the reason for other newspaper establishments not challenging it and petitioners also challenging it only after lapse of so many years. Further Section 2(i), 4 and Schedule I of Provident Fund Act shows how gradually the scope of the Act has been expanded by the Central Government and the Act and Scheme made applicable to various branches of industries. From whatever angle we may examine, the attack on the constitutional validity based on Article 14 cannot be accepted. (Paras 35 and 36)