Provisions of section 7-A not ultra vires.

Srinivasan, J.

In these two writ petitions, orders passed under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, are being challenged. Though the petitioners are different, the facts are similar and the arguments are identical. Hence, the petitions were heard together.

2. An order under S.7A of the Act was passed on 19th October 1973 against the petitioner in W.P. No. 8683 of 1982 and communicated to him. He had filed a petition under S.19A of the Act before the Government of India questioning the applicability of the Act. He filed W.P. No. 1599 of 1974 in this Court for forbearing the respondents from enforcing the order passed under S.7A of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to serve a copy of the order passed by the Central Government under S.19A of the Act on 14th August 1975 on the petitioner and then proceed further in accordance with law. The Central Government had decided that the Act was applicable to the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of S. 1(3)(a) of the Act. After the serving of the order on the petitioner as directed by this Court, proceedings were initiated under S.7A of the Act again. Once again the petitioner filed an application under S.19A of the Act on 30th January 1978 raising certain doubts as to the application of the Act under S. 1(3)(a) of the Act. He filed W.P. No. 2868 of 1978 contending that the proceedings under S.7A of the Act should not be conducted till the disposal of the application under S.19A of the Act. The Central Government passed an order on 14th May 1980 under S.19A of the Act holding that the Act could be applied to the establishment under S. 1(3)(a) of the Act after issuing a fresh coverage notice. In view of the same, the writ petition was dismissed as infructous on 11th December 1980. A separate coverage notice was sent to the petitioner allotting a new Code number with retrospective effect from 1st April 1972 under the scheduled head of Industries 'Textiles'. As the petitioner failed to implement the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder, an enquiry was initiated under S.7A of the Act. Several adjournments were granted at the instance of the petitioner; but he was absent on the date of final hearing and so ex parte orders were passed, which were communicated to him on 12th August 1982. That order is challenged in W.P. No. 8683 of 1982.

3. In so for as the petitioner in the other writ petition is concerned, his application under S.19A of the Act was not made known to the first respondent unit he initiated proceedings under S.7A of the Act. He filed W.P. No. 1600 of 1974 contending that the respondents should not proceed further till the disposal of his application under S.19A of the Act. That writ petition was dismissed on 23rd July 1977 with a direction to the Central Government to dispose of the application under S.19A of the Act within three months therefrom. Accordingly, the Central Government disposed of the application holding that the Act would apply to the establishment under the head 'Textiles'. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 886 of 1978 which was dismissed in limine. As the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of the Act, proceedings were taken under S.7A of the Act. The same is challenged in W.P. No. 8684 of 1982.

4. Three contentions are urged on behalf of petitioners. The first contention is that the petitioners will not be governed by the provisions of the Act, as there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the weavers. Reliance is placed on some observations made by Padmanabhan, J. in W.P. No. 5393 of 1981 in his judgment dated 17th June 1983. Apart from the fact that the observations do not help the petitioners as such, the contention is not available to the petitioners in view of the orders passed under S.19A of the Act, which have become final.

5. The second contention is that no reasonable opportunity was given by the respondent