Back
1984 Supreme(MP) 215
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. Mulye and M. D. Bhatt, JJ.
NATHULAL GOVERDHAN
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER M P
Decided On : Mar 27,1984
A.H.Khan, V.S.KOKJE,
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India-Art. 266-public interest litigation-a large number of employees who laboured hard during their employment deprived from their lawful dues -is a public interest litigation-public authorities should file returns to adjudicate the matter-Provident Fund Scheme.
(2) Public Interest litigation-what is.
The interest of so many poor people who have toiled hard for their wages, with a pinch in their stomach is involved because in many cases it is found that the employers are not keen to remit the amount to the Provident Fund Commissioner deducted from the wages of these workers nor are they willing to remit their share also which they are so bound under the said Provident Fund Scheme. It is unfortunate that in this petition the respondent No.2 the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, has not cared to file the returns or put in their appearance at the hearing of this petition especially when interest of thousands of workers is at stake because of the failure of their employers who have been utilising this money to which they are not at all entitled for their personal interest.
(3) Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952-Preamble-object of the Act-constitutional guarantee-social and economic justice -Constitution of India-Art 39 & 41.
(4) Constitution of India-Arts. 39 & 41-object of-how to be achieved.
The object of this Act appears to be to make some provision for the future of the industrial worker after he retires or for his dependents in case of his early death. [ Para 11
The Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 is a piece of social security enactment. Freedom from want and security against economic fear is one of the fundamental needs of our country. The Constitution guarantees to all people of India inter alia social and economic justice, but this has yet to be secured by peaceful social and legislative steps, as it has been aptly said that "it is the function of an ideal welfare State to give to every citizen the opportunity of earning his living and freedom from fear especially of economic ruin which can involve physical and even moral ruin." The provisions of our Constitution would reveal the objectives which the Union and the State Governments have to keep in view in the administration of the country and take the legislative steps desirable to lay the foundations of the social security against certain risks to which its members are exposed. These risks are essentially contingencies against which the individual of small means cannot effectively provide by his own ability or foresight alone or even in private combination with his fellows. In a modern State, it is of utmost importance to eradicate poverty, unemployment and disease. As a matter of fact, security of employment, security of income, and security against ill-health can only be assured through a system of social assistance schemes. AIR 1979 SC 1803 discussed. [ Para 10
(4) Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952-Para 72-amount due to employers under the scheme -cannot be withheld on the ground that the employer has not paid his share-recovering the share amount of the employer was the duty of the Provident fund Commissioner-employee cannot be deprived of the total amounts due to him after his retirement although his share was always deducted from his wages.
The employee for no fault of his cannot be allowed to suffer in this manner as he is entitled to the payment of the entire amount for the period for which he has put up his claim in this petition. Obviously the petitioner had become a member of the Scheme in the hope that on retirement he would get all his dues as amount from his wages was regularly deducted by the employer and he could have no reason to imagine that the employer might not have remitted his contribution so deducted as also the share of the employer to the said fund because that is one of the allurements to the employee that on retirement in addition to his own contribution he will get much more by way of cont· ribution of the share of his employer also because in such a case he would not get any pension from the employer but has to depend solely on his provident fund on which his livelihood in future would depend. [ Para 19
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is bound to pay the amount of petitioner's contribution for 17 months as also the share of the employer for 26 months which he was bound to pay and credit to the said Fund irrespective of the fact that actually the employer did not credit the said amount to the fund because in such a situation it is deemed to have been credited to the account of the employee in the said Fund. [ Para 20
( 1. ) THE petitioner, who is now an unemployed mill-hand, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that an appropriate writ be issued against the respondents to pay the amount of the Provident Fund to all the employees including the petitioner, of the mills taken over by the National Textile Corporation, who have not been paid their full dues on the ground that the employers have not paid certain contributions.
( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner was employed with M/s. Kalyanmal Mills, Ltd. , Indore, in its weaving Department (Seal Khata) since 1939. In the year 1952 when the employees Provident Fund Scheme was applied to the said Mills, the petitioner was also covered under the said scheme and was given benefit of the same. The petitioners Provident Fund Membership No. was MP-3612. His contributions were regularly deducted from November, 1952 upto the date of his retirement on 21-12-1980.
( 3. ) ON his retirement from service the petitioner was entitled to payment of the full amount of his provident fund by the Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Indore. However, when the payment was made, the petitioner was not paid the full amount due to him. He was told that the employer has not deposited employees contribution for 17 months and employers contribution for 26 months during 1970-7-1 and 1972-73. Then petitioner was, therefore, told that the amount would not be paid until it is realised by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from the employer. The undertaking of M/s. Kalyanmal Mills Ltd. , was nationalised under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, and its ownership was vested in the National Textile Corporation, with effect from 1-4-1974.
( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner there are several employees of Kalyanmal Mills and other nationalised textile mills in Indore who have not been paid their full amount of provident fund on the basis that certain amount towards contribution was due from the employers. The petitioner along with this petition has annexed a list of employees of M/s. Kalyanmal Mills, indore and of M/s. Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. , which has also been taken over by the National Textile Corporation, who have been deprived of the full amount of the provident fund (Annexures A and B),
( 5. ) FURTHER according to the petitioner though he has been knocking at the doors of the respondents for getting relief right from the time of his retirement, he has not been paid his dues as would be apparent from the copies of the correspondence filed by him along with this petition. Therefore, according to the petitioner the respondents cannot avoid payment of provident fund dues on the excuse that they have not been able to recover certain contributions from the employers. Further according to the petitioner the purpose, intent and scheme of the Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 shows that the amount to the employees towards provident fund cannot be made dependent on the payment of various contributions by the employers as it gives ample power to the respondents to realise the amount from the defaulting employers. Hence, according to the petitioner, the employees cannot be penalised for neglect or failure of the respondents in realising the contributions due from the employers with the result that withholding of payments by the respondents is illegal-
( 6. ) THE respondent No. 2 The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, new Delhi, has not filed any returns nor anyone put appearance in this court on his behalf.
( 7. ) THE respondent No. 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, m. P. , Indore in his return has admitted that there are several employees of Kalyanmal Mills and other National Textile Corporation Mills who have not been paid their full amount of provident fund as their employers have not deposited the due provident fund contribution in respect of those employ
