Judgment

DUA, J.: - The appellant in this appeal by certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 25, 1965 under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh A large number of writ petitions by various parties were filed in the High Court praying for writs in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to forbear from enforcing or taking other proceedings under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 With the exception of perhaps one writ petition, all the rest, including W. P. 907 of 1963 presented by T. S. Hariharan, Proprietor, New Cochin Cafe, Ongole, respondent in this Court were dismissed. Certificates under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution were secured by the appellant in almost all the cases but the present is the only appeal which now survives, all the rest having been dismissed for non prosecution.

2. The writ petition of the respondent was dismissed which means that the final order made by the High Court was in favour of the appellant. The only grievance raised by the appellant s learned counsel in this Court was that the High Court had in the course of its judgment expressed the view that Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act do not cover casual labour and since this expression of opinion which he considers to be legally erroneous would be binding on the appellant in administering the Act it was necessary to have the correct legal position enunciated by this Court. According to the appellant s learned counsel the following passages in the ,judgment of the High Court clearly bring out the argument both for and against the legal position canvassed by him:-

We have next to consider whether Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 1 (3) are wide enough to cover casual labour. It is maintained by the learned Government Pleader that requirement as to the numerical strength is satisfied if twenty persons are engaged in connection with the work of an establishment even for a day or a fraction thereof. This argument is sought to be reinforced by the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No, 183 of 1962, D/- 7-11-1963. It is true that this ruling vouches the proposition advanced by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Judges there observed:

It is admitted on behalf of the applicant that fifty people worked at least for one day in each year. This in our opinion, will be sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 1 (3) of the Act. The Act is an ameliorative measure extended to benefit the permanent workers of an establishment. What is necessary for those permanent workers to get the benefit is that there should be fifty workers in that factory. In our view, it would be sufficient if that condition is satisfied at least for one day.

With great respect, we are unable to subscribe to the rule stated therein. It is true that this legislative measure is an ameliorative one. All the same, it cannot be overlooked that benefits are intended to be conferred on workmen in establishments that are in a position to employ twenty or more persons. It may be incidentally mentioned here that originally, i.e., prior to the Amendment Act, 46 of 1960 the number of employees in the establishment that would be brought within the scope of Section 1(3) was fixed at fifty.

We find it difficult to agree with the view that twenty or more persons can be said to be employed or that an establishment employs twenty or more persons merely because on one day or two days the services of twenty or more persons were engaged for a particular purpose. To accept this contention would be to unduly enlarge the content of the Section. To attract the applicability of Section 1(3) the number of persons should come upto minimum of twenty. The underlying idea seems to be that the establishment should have twenty persons on its muster