JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J. :—The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter the Act was enacted to serve beneficent purpose and it does constitute a welfare measure, as it seeks to create a fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and some establishments to meet pressing demands so also to provide pensions after the employees have ceased to be in service. So the Act has to be construed in such a way, in case two views be possible, which advances the object. This has been the outlook of the Court for over three decades by now, as the same was first focussed in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Company, 1962 (Supp) 3 SCR 815, and was reiterated in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works, 1965 (2) SCR 72.

2. The purpose of the aforesaid prologue is to find out as to when power under Section 14-B of the Act should be allowed to be used and whether it would be in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act if delay in invoking the power is allowed to stand in the way. As in the present case we are concerned with the order of the Regional Pr