Retrospective application of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to the company was impermissible and would lead to absurd consequences, as many employees had already left service, retired, or passed away.

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21st May, 2010. It appears that the writ petition being W. P. No. 2610 of 1994 was dismissed for default on 23rd April, 2002. Subsequent thereto, the matter was restored on 23rd May, 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by Arun Kumar Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was). On 8th April, 2003 His Lordship was pleased to pass the following order :

"The Court: In this writ petition the petitioner has made following prayers: "a) Writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel and/or forbear from giving effect or further effect to the order dated 14th February, 1994 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, respondent No. 1, (Annexure "F-1" of this petition); b) Writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court records for the proceedings pertaining to the issue of the said impugned order dated 14th February, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure "F-1" of this petition) so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same; c) Writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition directing the respondents to refrain from abusing jurisdiction vested in them and from giving effect or further effect to the impugned order dated 14th February, 1994 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, respondent No. 1, (Annexure "F-1" to the petition); d) Rule NISI in terms of the aforesaid prayers; dd) The provisions of the said 'declaration employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 be applied to your petitioner, if at all only prospectively from the date of the order to be passed herein;" It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that he Provident Fund Scheme is made for employees and the company petitioner is the superintending company. It has not been doing fabrication business. Mr. Roychoudhury submits that the company only does inspection analyze and submits their reports and these are now their job. Neither the company manufactures nor buys and raw materials and the company only inspects and analyses its quality control. For this purpose, the company is to engage engineer and this is obvious. Mr. Roychoudhury relies on a decision in AIR 98 page 370 where it has been observed that a claim under the Provident Fund Scheme can be prospective not a retrospective. Mr. Roychoudhury submits that the company intends to come under the coverage that is under the umbrella of the company but there cannot be retrospective way of operation of the Government circular because it must be prospective. After considering the submissions made by Mr. Roychoudhury and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition along with the annexures I direct the Provident Fund Authorities to consider their scheme and they want to cover the company prospectively with effect from the date of passing of this judgment and order by this Court. The company petitioner will be treated as coverage under the scheme envisaged by the Provident Fund Authority as alleged in this writ petition' with prospective effect and the Provident Fund Authority in no way be entitled to make any demand or deduction of any amount and to take steps in terms of the Government circular with retrospective effect. With the above directions this writ petition is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking."

2. SUBSEQUENT thereto in May, 2003 the Regional Provident Fund Authorities took up an application being GA No. 1827 of 2003 and prayed for modification and/or variation and/or recalling of the said judgment and order dated 8th April, 2003, passed by His Lordship Arun Kumar Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) on the ground that they had not had an opportunity to file an affidavit-in- oppos