Ramakrishnan, J. These appeals are directed respectively against the judgments of Jagadisan, J., in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959 and Veeraswami, J., in Writ Petition No. 619 of 1959, petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. They were heard together since common questions have arisen in them for decision.

In the first case, the petitioner-firm ran a factory, from 1942, for manufacturing tapes, lampwicks, etc., with more than fifty persons in its employ. At an anterior stage, the firm disputed the fact that the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act, would apply to the firm, and the question was settled only when the Central Government passed an order on 29 September 1958, under S.19A of the Act, holding that the Act applied. This decision was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959, but Jagadisan, J., held the point against the petitioner. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner's concern is covered by the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, by an order dated 1 September 1959, called upon the petitioner to pay

(1) the employer's share of the contribution to the provident fund from 1 November 1952 (the date on which the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Act became applicable to the firm) up to 30 April 1957, the date when the petitioner was called upon the to pay the contribution by a notice);

(2) administrative charges in full, calculated on both the employee's and employer's share of the contribution to the provident fund (under Cl. 39 of the Provident Fund Scheme read with the notification of the Government dated 31 October, 1952 - the percentage of administrative charges payable by the employer was fixed at 3 per cent of the total employer's and employees' contribution); and(3) damages for default calculated at 64 per cent per annum from the date on which the arrears fell due, up to the date of remittance (under S.14B of the Act, a maximum of 25 per cent of the amount of arrears was fixed for damages).

The petitioner urged in the writ petition that these claims for a back-period were unsustainable, and that a careful examination of the Act and the scheme would show that the provident fund contribution and administrative charges cannot be levied retrospectively, because such levy would be oppressive and illegal. Jagadisan, J., following the decision of the Calcutta High Court of a single Judge, Mukharji, J., in Aluminium Corporation of India, Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner upheld the contentions of the petitioner, and directed the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the respondent before the learned Judge, to forbear from making collections from the petitioner, by levy of contributions and management expense for the period 1 November 1952 to 30 April 1957. In regard to the claim for damages, the learned Judge accepted the contention of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, that the claim for damages had not yet been settled but was under investigation and, therefore, did not grant any relief in regard to it. Against this decision, the respondent before the learned Judge, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, has filed this appeal (Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1963).

In Writ Petition No. 619 of 1959, East India Industries (Private), Ltd., Madras, a firm engaged in manufacturing waterproof packing paper, tarpaulins, etc., has been called upon by the Provident Fund Commissioner, to remit the arrears of employer's contribution for the period from 1 March 1954 (the date when the scheme framed under the Act became applicable to the factory) to 31 March 1958, besides the administrative charges for the said period at 3 per cent on both the employee's and employer's contribution, and damages at 61/4 per cent per annum. There was an initial dispute before Veeraswami, J., as to whether the firm in question was a factory to which the Act would apply. That questio