S. 1 (3) (a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, applies to composite factories, including those that run industries both within and outside Schedule I of the Act.

Judgment

GANENDRAGADKAR, J. : The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the factory run by the appellant, the Associated Industries (P) Ltd., Quilon, falls within S. 1 (3) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act ). The appellant is a Company which runs a tile factory and an engineering works at Quilon. The tile factory began its career in July, 1943, and the engineering works in September, 1950. It is common ground that these two industries are separate and distinct and that they are carried on by the same Company and on the same premises. It is also common ground that a licence issued under the Factories Act, 1948 has been issued to the appellant for the entire premises and it is under this licence that the said premises are allowed to be used as one factory under the said Act and the rules framed thereunder.

2. It appears that the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum, intimated to the appellant on March 10, 1953, that the Act as well as the scheme framed under it were applicable to the appellant s factory, and so, the appellant was called upon to deposit in the Sub-Office of the Imperial Bank of India the contributions and administrative charges as required by S. 6 of the Act. The same requisition was repeated on March 25, 1953 and April 24, 1953. The appellant disputed the correctness of the view taken by the respondent that the appellant s factory fell under the purview of the Act, and so, it refused to comply with the respondent s requisition. Thereupon, the respondent wrote to the appellant on June 16, 1953 informing it that appropriate action would be taken to compel the appellant to make the necessary deposit and submit returns as required by the Act in case it failed to comply with the notices issued in that behalf. At this stage, the appellant moved the High Court of Kerala by a writ petition (O. P. No. 97/1953) in which it claimed a writ of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the respondent against it and restraining the respondent from proceeding further in the matter and for other incidental reliefs.

3. The main contention raised by the appellant before the High Court was that the appellant s factory was not an establishment to which S. 1 (3) of the Act applied. The High Court has rejected this contention. Then it was urged before the High Court on behalf of the appellant that the effect of the notices served on the appellant by the respondent was retrospective in character and it was urged that the said notices were illegal. This argument was also rejected by the High Court. The appellant further contended before the High Court that since for the relevant period the employees had not made their contributions, it would be inequitable to enforce the notices against the appellant. The High Court noticed the fact that it had been conceded by the respondent that he did not propose to collect the employees share of the contribution to the fund for the relevant period from the appellant, and it held that the concession so made was proper and fair and so, there was no substance in the grievance made by the appellant that giving effect to the notices served on it by the respondent would be inequitable and unjust. On these findings, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court.

4. The principal point which is sought to be raised by Mr. Pai on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is concluded by a recent decision of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commr. Bombay v. Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co. Bhandara, AIR 1962 S C 1536. It would be noticed that the relevant sections which fell to be construed in dealing with the appellant s contention are, S. 1 (3), S. 2 (g) and (i) and S. 6 of the Act. Section 1 (3) (a) provides, inter alia, that subject to the provisions contained i