LexDISTRICT EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DISTRICT EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 25, 1991 [JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] A B Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952/ Employees' Provident Scheme, 1952: Sections 1, 5, 6, 7/Paragraphs 30, 32-Cine workers and Cinema theatre workers-Extension of benefits to-Notification-. Issue of-Retrospective effect-Validity of-Employees' contribution C for the retrospective period-Payment of-Whether employer is liable- Deduction thereof from wages paya!>le to employees in future-Whether permissible. On 30.4.1986, a Notification was issued by the Government of India amending the scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and D Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in conformity with Section 24 of the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employ- ment) Act, 1981, with retrospeciive effect from 1.10.1984~ The effect of the amendment was to extend the benefit of iiie Provident Fuilds Act and the Scheme thereunder to the Cine Workers and cfuemil theatre workers. The appellants challenged the validity of the Noiltication E before the High Court by way of Writ Petitions, contending that the said Notification was ultra-vires the provisioru; of iiie Provident Ftlnd Act since the Central Governmeni could not extent the scheme to an establishment which is neither an industry nor a notified establishment nnder Section 3(b) of the Act and there was no liabilit~ under the scheme to make coniributiOn towards i'rovideni Fund in ~of the F employees who ceased to be Cinema workers before 30.4. i986. It was further contended that calling upon the empioyets to contribute arrears from the date the schejne was made applicable led to hardship and - injustice and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Couri. In their G appeals to this Court, the appellants contended thai so fong as the Notification as required by the proviso to Section 1(3)(b) of the Provi- dent Funds Act has not been issued, the Act cannot be made applicable to them and even assuming that Section 24 of the Cinema Theatre Workers Act takes the place of the required Notification, an express notification under Section 5 wouid be required. if was also contended H 471 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) 2 S.C.R. A that under Section 6 of the Provident Funds Act the liability is fixed only for employers' share of contribution and not the employees' share, and since paragraph 30 of the Provident Fund Scheme was not made applicable, there arose no liability of the employers to pay employees' -.J share and as the appellants were being asked to pay the contribution of the employees' share retrospectively without the corresponding right of B employer to recover it from the wages of employees, it was harsh and unjust. On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that it might be possible for the appellants to make deduction from subsequent wages of -< workmen with the consent of the Inspector as required under the third c proviso to pa.ra 32( 1) of the Provident Fund Scheme. Partly allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1. Section 24 of the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 has fulf°Illed the D purpose of the Notification which the Central Government could have issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act read with the proviso. Therefore, no further Notification as contemplated by Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act was necessary. Section 24 has taken the place of the Notification contemplated by Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act read with the proviso thereto. Therfore, the Provi- E dent Funds Act became applicable to the theatres who employ five or more workers with effect from 1st October, 1984. Again in view of Section 6 of the Provident Funds Act, the employers became liable to ·~ pay their contribution to the fund as soon as the Act came into force i.e. " w .e.f. 1st October, 1984. [488B-D] F Mis. Orissa Cement Ltd. v. union of India,, (1962] (Suppl) 3 SCR 837 and M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1965] 2 SCR 686, distinguished. 2. It is only hy the Notification dated 30.4.1986 that the Provident Funds Scheme was amended so as to be made applicable in respect of the , G cinema theatres employing five or more persons. Without such a Notifi- .. cation the Scheme would not have beco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.