The main legal point established is that the dispute resolution process under Section 19a of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, is for the benefit of the authorities enforcing the provisions of the Act, and the finality contemplated by Section 19a is as regards the departmental view, not binding on the opposite party.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting question of law on which the judicial opinion is sharply divided. Wadi Stone Marketing Company (Private), Ltd. , has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may be pleased to call for, by the issue of a write of certiorari or other appropriate write or direction, as the case may be, the proceedings of respondents 1 and 2 culminating in the order dated 3 April, 1962, marked as Ex. N in the case, and quash the same. It has further prayed for a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents requiring them not to take any action against the petitioner-company or its directors or officers in the matter of realization of the alleged contribution due to the provident fund.

( 2 ) IN the course of his argument Sri S. K. Venkataranga Ayyangar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed for acceptance two contentions, namely

(i) on a true understanding of the facts of the case, it would be seen that the petitioner company is not liable to contribute to the employees' provident fund (to be hereinafter referred to as the fund) under the provisions of the employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act); and

(ii) under any circumstance, the petitioner is not liable to make any contribution to the fund as the respondents have failed to refer the matter to the decision of the Central Government, as required by S. 19a of the Act.

( 3 ) THE petitioner took on lease from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, as per the registered lease deed dated 1 October, 1952, the right to extract what is popularly known as Shahabad stones or slabs from the lands detailed in the lease deed in question. Shahabad stones or slabs are used for flooring purpose. Shahabad is situate in Gulbarga district of this State which prior to the reorganization of States was a part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.

( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of S. 1 of the Act says :

"subject to the provisions contained in S. 16, it applies - (a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Sch. I and in which twenty or more persons are employed, and (b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf : provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such number of persons less than twenty as may be specified in the notification. "

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner's establishment does not come within the ambit of S. 1 (3) (a ). The only question is whether it is covered by S. 1 (3) (b ). According to the petitioner, it is not so covered. But according to the respondents, it is so covered.

( 6 ) ON 17 August, 1957, the Ministry of Labour and Employment (Government of India) by its notification No. SRO 2705 notified that the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to the following four classes of mines, viz. ,

(1) iron-ore mines, (2) limestone mines, (3) manganese mines, and (4) gold mines, with effect from 30 November 1957. The question is whether in view of this notification which was made under S. 1 (3) (b) of the Act the provisions of the Act must be held to be applicable to the petitioner's establishment.

( 7 ) ON 12 December 1958, respondent I called for certain information from the petitioner company to ascertain whether the Act is applicable to the petitioner's establishment. The said document is marked as Ex. A in the case. It is the usual circular letter issued to all establishments which the department thinks are liable to contribute to the fund. On September 16, 1959, respondent 2 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner requiring it to show cau