( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Gandhi for Nanavati Associates appears for respondent Nos 1 to 3 and waives service of rule and Mr. Mengdey, Ld. AGP appears for respondent No. 4 and waives service of rule. With the consent of learned advocates for parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has preferred this petition for the reliefs, interalia, for directing the respondent No. 4 to investigate into the entire matter and to take action for nonpayment of minimum wages to the petitioner by the respondent company and the petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent company to pay the loan amount from his PF account lying with the companys PF trust. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the labour court to dispose of the Ref. (LCA) No. 1852/01 at the earliest.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is in employment of the respondent-Company, namely, Karam Chand Thapar and Bros (CS) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Co" ). It is the case of the petitioner that he is being paid salary of Rs. 1875. 00p. m. which is less than minimum wages. However, as per the respondent-company the amount of salary paid to the petitioner is not less than minimum wages. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having PF Account with the companys PF trust and he is in need of loan for treatment of his son. It appears that the petitioner came to be transferred from Ahmedabad to Guwahati and the petitioners case is that it is practically impossible for the person like the petitioner who is being paid meagre salary to accept the transfer and as per the petitioner such order of transfer is in effect an order of termination. However, the petitioner has raised dispute under I. D. Act which has been referred to labour court for adjudication being Ref (LCA) No. 1852/01 and the same is pending. Since the petitioner raised dispute against the transfer order and consequential termination, the petitioner has not joined at the transferred place and he is not paid salary by the respondent company and therefore there is no contribution to PF account after transfer order. It is the case of the respondent company that the loan application of the petitioner is processed and it was recommended for sanctioning of loan of Rs. 40,000. 00. However, the PF trust of the respondent company has denied the sanctioning of loan since there is no contribution to the PF account by the petitioner since the order of transfer or in any case for a period of more than one year and under the circumstances the petitioner has approached this court by the present petition.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Mishra for the petitioner, Mr. Gandhi for Nanavaty Associates for the respondent company and Mr. Mengdey, Ld. AGP for respondent-State. So far as loan from PF account is concerned, as such the PF amount is employees money and such fund is essentially for utilisation by the employee in his rainy days. If the employee has made an application to the concerned PF Trust for sanctioning of the loan for the treatment of his son a sympathetic view is required to be taken and the respondent-companys PF trust could have taken lenient view so as to enable the employee to meet with the exigencies in his difficult financial situation. So far as noncontribution for the period of one year on account of transfer and consequential dispute raised before the appropriate authority is concerned, the same shall be dealt with hereinafter, but considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,that when the respondent company has already recommended for sanction of loan and considering the circumstances that the amount is required by the petitioner for the treatment of his son, the PF trust of the respondent company should accept the recommendation for the purpose of sanctioning the loan as recommended by the respondent company and the amount deserves to be disbursed to the petitioner.

( 5 ) AS regards the payment of wage