Judgment

MATHEW, J:- The facts are similar in all these cases. We propose to deal with Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 1968. The decision there will dispose of the other appeals.

2. The first respondent, a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Gujarat. In that petition it impugned the provisions of Section 3, 6-A and 7 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 13 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the First Amendment Act) and Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as unconstitutional and prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction against the respondents in the writ petition to desist from enforcing the direction in the notice dated August 2, 1962 of respondent No. 3 to the writ petition requiring the petitioner-1st respondent to pay the unpaid accumulations specified therein.

3. The High Court held that Section 3 (1) of the Act in so far as it relates to unpaid accumulations specified in Section 3 (2) (b), Sectio