( 1 ) IN all these revision applications the question that arises is as to what is the nature of the suit filed by the petitioners original plaintiffs and under which provision of the Court-Fees Act the amount of Court-Fees is chargeable ? Shortly stated a pure and simple question of fact arises and that is read the plaint and reliefs claimed therein and find out what is the subject matter of the suit. The next question is whether this subject matter of the suit is susceptible to monetary evaluation ?

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act 1953 (as adopted and applied by the State of Gujarat) and certain provisions of the Rules framed thereunder are illegal and void and the notice issued by the Labour Welfare Commissioner calling upon them to pay the amount of unpaid accumulation be also declared illegal and void and further prayed that the defendants be restrained from enforcing the notice of demand by issuing permanent injunction. The Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act 1953 (the Act for short) was enacted by the then State of Bombay with an object to provide for the constitution of a Fund for financing promoting and conducting labour welfare activities and for certain other objects. After the bifurcation of the bigger bilingual State the Act was adopted by the State of Gujarat in the year 1960. The constitutional validity of the said Act was challenged earlier before the High Court of Bombay and thereafter it was again challenged before this High Court also on certain other grounds. Ultimately the employers lost their battle before the Supreme Court in the year 1974 (see AIR 1974 SC 1300 ). Inter alia it was held by the Supreme Court that the amount of unpaid accumulations defined under sec. 2 (10) of the Act was the liability of the employers and it was not their property. Unpaid accumulations as defined under the Act would mean all payments due to the employees but not paid to them within a period of three years from the date on which they became due. This would include amount of unpaid wages and gratuity but not amount of P. F. contribution made by the employees. Since this amount of unpaid accumulations which runs into lakhs was not paid to the appropriate authority by the various Mill Companies as required under the provisions of the Act the Labour Welfare Commissioner issued notice dated 8/10/1976 and called upon them to pay the amount of unpaid accumulations.

( 3 ) THE petitioners original plaintiffs filed civil suits in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad on 21/10/1976 and prayed for declaration to the effect that certain provisions of the Act and rules and the demand notice be declared illegal and void and also prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the demand notice. The plaintiffs also prayed for certain other ancillary reliefs. Thus it would be seen that despite the fact that the constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court and there were two previous rounds of litigation which went up to Supreme Court the employers i. e. the plaintiff Mill Companies resorted to the remedy of civil suit and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. The plaintiffs also moved the trial court for ad interim injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from recovering the amount of unpaid accumulations under the impugned provisions of the Act the Rules and in pursuance of the Demand Notice. The suits were decided by the trial court some time in the month of September 1978 and they were ordered to be dismissed. First Appeals filed by the plaintiffs in this High Court have also been dismissed. But we are not directly concerned with this aspect in these cases and hence no further reference is necessary.

( 4 ) IT appears that during the time when the suits were pending the Inspecting Officer Court-fees filed a report under sec. 12 of the Act and submitted that the suit was not properly v