The court clarified that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial and was not obligated to adjourn the case for the Central Government's decision under S.19A.

1. This is a revision petition filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam who is the complainant in C.C. No. 69 of 1961 & C.C. Nos. 21 and 30 of 1962 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam. The first accused is a private limited company at Alwaye engaged in road motor transport industry. Accused 2 to 4 are officers responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. The provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Scheme framed thereunder have been made applicable to the motor transport industry with effect from 30-4-1959. The case against the accused was that they failed to pay the employers' share of the contribution and failed to submit returns in due time as enjoined in the Act and the Scheme.

2. The cases were taken on file and when the accused appeared in court they pleaded not guilty to the charges. The case was, therefore, posted for evidence and on that day the learned counsel for the accused raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the prosecution. It was contended for the accused that their's is not a factory engaged in any industry as specified in Schedule I, and the accused is not employing 50 or more persons so as to come within the purview of the Act. Referring to S.19A of the Act it was contended that unless an authority appointed by the Central Government declares that the first accused company comes within the purview of Clause.1 and 2 of S.19A the court cannot proceed with the trial of the case. The learned Magistrate agreeing with the contention ordered that the accused should move the Central Government under S.19A and that the cases would be taken up for evidence only after orders are passed on the application. The learned Magistrate stated:

"Unless these two questions are decided by the authority appointed by the Central Government, I do not think it will be correct to proceed with the trial of these cases."

It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that under S.244 Crl. P.C., in a summons case if the accused does not admit having committed the offence charged, the Magistrate is bound to hear the complainant

and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces and either acquit the accused or find him guilty & convict and sentence him according to law & that the mere fact that in S.19A a power is given to the Central Government to remove difficulties arising in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, that would not be a justification to stay further proceedings in the case or oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to decide the points involved in the case.

4. Now the short question arising in this petition is as to the construction and scope of S.19A of the Act. S.19A is in the following terms:

19A. Power to remove difficulties. - If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, and in particular if any doubt arises as to -

(i) whether an establishment which is a factory is engaged in any industry specified in schedule I; or

(ii) whether any particular establishment is an establishment falling within the class of establishments to which this Act applies by virtue of a notification under clause (b) of subsection (3) of S.1; or

(iii) the number of persons employed in an establishment; or

(iv) the number of years which have elapsed from the date on which an establishment has been set up; or

(v) whether the total quantum of benefits to which an employee is entitled has been reduced by the employer,

the Central Government may, by order, make such provision or give such direction, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the doubt or difficulty; and the order of the Central Government in such cases shall be final."

The se