JUDMENT - J. R. MUDHOLKAR J. :

This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ restraining the respondent No. 1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, from enforcing against the petitioner any of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952.

(2) The petitioner is the Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association and represents all the mine owners of Vidarbha. By Notification No. S. R. O. 2705, dated 17-8-1957, the Central Government has. applied the Act to manganese mines. According to the petitioner, manganese mines are not included in Schedule I of the Act and that industry is therefore not a scheduled industry and consequently the Act or any provision thereof cannot be applied.

(3) Under sub-s. (3) of S. 1 of the Act as it originally stood, the provisions of the Act applied in the first instance to all factories engaged in any Scheduled industry in which fifty or more persons are employed. By Act 94 of 1956, which received the assent of the President on 28-12-1956, this provision has been amended and in its place we have the following provision:

"Subject to the provisions contained in S. 16, it applies-

(a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which fifty or more persons are employed, and

(b) to any other establishment employing fifty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf."

1959 Maroti v. Member, State Industrial Court (J. R. Mudholkar J.) [Prs. 4-7] Bombay 61

(4) It is thus clear that the object of the amendment was to empower the Central Government to apply the provisions of the Act to industries other than those specified in Schedule I. This is also made clear in the Statement of Objects and Reasons printed in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Sec. 2, No. 55, dated 23-11-1956. The Objects and Reasons are as follows :

"The Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, applied originally to factories engaged in the six industries specified in Schedule I, namely, cement, cigarettes, electrical, mechanical or general engineering products, iron and steel, paper and textiles. Section 4 of the Act provides for the extension of the Act to other factories by a notification in the Official Gazette. Of late, there has been a persistent demand for the extension of provident fund benefits to all industrial workers, and the Act has recently been extended to seventeen additional factory industries by notification. Section 4. however, provides for application of the Act to factory industries only. There is no provision in the Act enabling its extension to other establishments like plantations, mines, commercial establishments, etc. It is, therefore, proposed to include an enabling provision in the Act to the effect that, subject to the exemptions provided in section 16, the Act shall apply to any establishment or class of establishments as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

It is quite true that a Court cannot go into the statement of Objects and Reasons for the purpose of limiting the scope of any law or for the purpose of interpreting the law, but where, as here, the Court has to find out what was the object of making the particular law, it is entitled to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons. We are not going to construe the provisions of sub-scetion (3) of section 1 of the Act in the light of the Objects and Reasons, and the only purpose for which we have quoted the Objects and Reasons is to indicate the reasons which necessitated the amendment of subsection (3). of Sec. 1.

(5) When one looks to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (3) of Sec. 1, it is abundantly clear that the legislators had kept in mind the distinction between an industry specified in Schedule I and an industry not so specified. In the case of an industry specified in Schedule I, clause (a) provides for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document