Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- This appeal, on certificate, by the Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra State, is directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1965 of the Bombay High Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1964 filed by the respondent company under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the notice of demand dated May 22, 1963 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

2. The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed by the respondent may be stated: The respondent, a limited company having its Head Office at Ogalewadi in Satara District was manufacturing at the relevant time Glassware, Stoves, Lanterns and Enamel wares. It had several sections in its factory, namely (1) Glass Manufacturing Section, (2) Lantern and Safety Stoves Section, (3) Enamel Section, (4) General Section and (5) Canteen Section. In or about 1946 the Company had introduced a Provident Fund Scheme for its workers under which it paid 12 pies in a rupee as the employer s contribution towards the said fund. In 1951 the Provident Fund Scheme was amended and the Company agreed to make contributions to the fund only if it made profits.

3. On November 1, 1952, the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, Act No XIX of 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), came into force and it was made applicable to certain Scheduled Industries. There is no controversy that the Act was made applicable to the respondent on October 6, 1952 and the company had been paying its contribution to the Employees Provident Fund from November 1, 1952. For the purpose of the Fund, a scheme had been framed under the Act. According to the Regional Provident Commissioner, the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder applied to the entire body of employees working under the respondent. Though the Company then raised objections on the ground that only the employees in the Lantern and Stoves Section were covered by the Scheme and that it was bound to make contributions only in respect of those employees, nevertheless, the Company continued to make its share of contribution to the Provident Fund even in respect of other employees working in other sections.

4. In the meanwhile another establishment in the area, the Nagpur Glass Works, which was carrying on a business similar to that of the respondent company filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, being Miscellaneous Petition No. 122 of 1956 contesting the claim of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the Act applied to all sections of the Glass Works. In the said writ petition the contention was that the Act and the Scheme will apply only to the Lantern and Stove Section. Though this claim was contested by the Department, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by its decision D/- 7-3-1957 reported in Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commr., ILR (1958) Bom 444 upheld the contentions of the Nagpur Glass Works that the Act and the Scheme applied only to such sections or departments of the Company as were covered by Schedule I. The respondent before us continued to make its contribution in respect of all the employees. There was some correspondence between the Company and the Department, to which we will refer later. The Department had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Cout before this Court. The decision of the Bombay High Court was reversed by this Court on March 14, 1962 in the decision in Regional Provident Fund Commr Bombay v. Shree Krishna Motal Manufacturing Co., Bhandara (1962) Supp 3 SCR 815 This Court after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act including S. 2A which had been introduced by an amendment in 1960 held that the Act applied to composite factories and that the Glass Works therein was commercially engaged in a Scheduled industry among others and hence the Act was applicable to it. On this basis this Court held tha