The liability to contribute to the provident fund under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 commences from the date the scheme comes into force, and employers are liable to pay contributions retrospectively for the period prior to the date of enforcement of the scheme in full.

A. N. Grover, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ No.297 of 1964 and five connected petitions (Civil Writs Nos.304, 305, 306, 375 and 460 of 1964) in which a common question of law is involved.

2. It is necessary to state the facts in the first petition only. The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on business of manufacturing machine tools and is registered under the Factories Act since 1958. By a letter dated 14 June 1962, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (to be referred to as the Commissioner) appointed under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), called for some information in a pro forma which was annexed to the letter with a view to examine whether the petitioner-concern fell within the puryiew of the Act because by means of a Government of India notification dated 7 March 1962, the Act and the scheme framed thereunder had been made applicable to every trading and commercial establishment employing twenty or more persons. This information was furnished along with communication dated 18 June 1962. It was stated in the pro forma (copy annexure B.1) that the number of all categories of employees employed as on 30 April 1962 was fifteen. On 18 May 1963 the Commissioner wrote to the petitioner saying that according to the enquiries made by the department the petitioner-concern was engaged in industry as specified in Sen. I of the Act, as amended, and it employed 20 persons as on 31 December 1960 and had also completed five years of establishment as provided under Sec.16 (b) of the Act. As such it was covered by the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder with effect from 1 January 1961. He further proceeded to say: Keeping, however, in view the fact that your factory establishment has been discovered for coverage under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, at a later stage, you are allowed, as a special case, to deposit only the employers share of provident fund contributions and administration charges at 3 per cent on both employees and employers shares of contributions for the pre-discovery period, i. e. , 1 January 1961 to 31 May 1963. As far as arrears of contributions of employees shares for the said period are concerned, these may be left to the workers concerned to pay the same if they so desire. The Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, should, however, be applied in full from 1 June 1963 in your factory/establishment. The attention of the petitioner was also invited to the consequences of the nature of criminal prosecution and levying of damages, etc. , and other charges which would follow in case the provident fund contributions and administration charges were not deposited within a certain time. It is clear from annexure D that the Commissioner informed the petitioner about the code number allotted to It and that it had been covered under the Act with effect from 1 January 1961. On 27 May 1963 the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner saying that under the law it was not liable to pay contributions to the fund retrospectively for the pre-discovery period and referred to certain judgments of the Madras and the Calcutta Courts on the point. On 8 August 1963 the Commissioner sent a reply saying that since the Punjab High Court had held that the employer of a factory was liable to report compliance from the date from which the Act became applicable to the factory, the petitioner had been rightly directed to deposit the provident fund dues and submit the relevant returns from 1 January 1961 to date. The petitioner approached the Government of India by means of a representation but he was informed that his case was not covered by Sec.19a of the Act.

3. Sri Dalip Chand Gupta, who represents the petitioner in five of the petitions, contends that respondent 1 had no jurisdiction to demand contribution for what is called the pre-disoovery period, i. e. , the period to the date when the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (to be referred