The Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, cannot be applied retrospectively to subject an establishment to the purview of the Act for a period prior to the date when the Act is sought to be applied.

ORDER :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to forbear from enforcing his order No. D/MD/598 Regl. dated 28th April, 1957.

2. The petitioner is a firm of partnership running a factory at Tiruchirapalli. The factory was started as early as 1942. The factory was devoted for the purpose of manufacturing (i) tapes for insulation; (ii) lamp wicks; (iii) braided cords; (iv) sewing thread rolls which are reeled from bundles purchased from mills. More than 50 persons have all along been employed in this establishment. The Employees Provident Funds Act (Act XIX of 1952) applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 of the Act and in which 50 or more persons are employed. After the Act came into force the Regional Provident Fund Inspector inspected the petitioners factory. He scrutinised the samples of the products manufactured in the factory and issued a notice on 28th April, 1957, wherein he stated that the factory came under the Act and the scheme framed thereunder on and from 1st November, 1952. The petitioner was called upon to pay (i) the employers share of contribution for the back period commencing from 1-11-1952 to 30-4-1957; (ii) the administrative charges in full on both the employees and employers share of contribution which works out at 6 per cent of the above and (iii) damages at 6½ per cent per annum calculated from the date on which the arrears fell due up to the date of remittance. It was claimed that the petitioners factory fell within the ambit of the Act, as it was engaged in the manufacture of textiles (made wholly or in part of cotton or wool, or jute or silk whether natural or artificial) within the meaning of the said expression under Schedule I of the Act. The petitioner applied to the Central Government under section 19-A of the Act inviting its decision whether the industry carried on by the petitioner was one within the Act. By the order dated 29-9-1958 passed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, it was held that the Act covered the petitioners factory. The Central Government however permitted the petitioner to pay the arrears of amount due under the Act in 15 equal monthly instalments. The petitioner still persisted in submitting that the factory was not within the Act and submitted its protest to the Central Government against its decision under section 19-A of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, the respondent, by his order dated 1-9-1959, insisted that the petitioner should pay up the amounts due and also threatened to take proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act in case of default in payment. The petitioner paid about Rs. 3000/- towards the contributions claimed for the period between 1952 to 1957, but yet large arrears to the tune of about Rs. 13,000/-, remained unpaid. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to take proceedings under the Act against the petitioner on the footing that the factory in question attracts the applicability of the Act.

3. The relevant provisions of the Act may now be referred to briefly. Section I (3) runs thus :

"Subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies -

(a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which 50 or more persons are employed, and

(b) to any other establishment employing 50 or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf :" Schedule I is in these terms :

"Any industry engaged in the manufacture of any of the following namely ......... textiles (made wholly or in part of cotton or wool or jute or silk, whether natural or artificial)."

The Explanation to the Schedule runs thus :

"In