EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 11-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 11, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952: 
Paragraph 80(2)-Excluded employees-Newspaper industry-
Emp/oyees of newspaper industry did not come in the category of "excluded 
employees" and were entitled to all benefits of the Scheme irrespective of 
pay-Test of income had been excluded by keeping the newspaper industry 
D and employees as a class apart-Petitioners challenged the constitutionality 
of Para 80(2) alleging that there was no valid basis to single out newspaper 
industry for additional burden-Held: Para 80(2) which applied exclusively 
to employees of newspaper industry did not suffer from the vice of 
arbitrariness-Hence, it was not violative of Art. I 4 of the Constitution 
although it singled out newspaper industry by excluding income test only with 
E regard to the said industry-Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1952, Paras. 2(1), 2(/) and (5)-Working Journalists and 
Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1955. 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 32-Writ petition-Delay and /aches-Effect of-Held: The 
constitutional remedy under Art. 32 is discretionary-In one case Court may 
decline discretionary relief if there is an inordinate delay-But, in another 
case, the Court may ignore the delay and pronounce upon the invalidity of a 
G provision-It will depend from case to case-On facts, writ petition challenging 
benefit given to employees of newspaper industry in the year 1956 and 
continuing till date was dismissed on the ground of long delay. 
The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Paragraph 80(2) of 
H 
1098 
--
--· 
EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. v. U.0.1. 
I 099 
the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The effect of the impugned A 
paragraph was that the employees of the petitioner-newspaper industry, 
for the purposes of the provident fund scheme, did not fall in the category 
of excluded employees despite their pay being above the prescribed amount 
as notified by the respondent from time to time. 
The employees of the petitioner had not been included in the category B 
of "excluded employee" as defined in Paragraph 2(t)(ii) of the Scheme for 
the last more than 47 years. The effect of Paragraph S0(2) of the Scheme, 
which came into force in the year 1956, was that the income ceiling had 
not been applied to the employees of the newspaper establishments. The 
result was that the newspaper establishments and newspaper employees C 
did not -come in the category of 'excluded employee'. In other words, 
irrespective of pay, all such employees were entitled to the benefit of the 
Scheme. 
On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that only in case of 
employees of the newspaper industry, the test of income had been excluded D 
by keeping the newspaper establishments and employees as a class apart 
which was wholly discriminatory; that there was no rationale or valid basis 
for artificially treating newspaper establishments and employees as a 
distinct class so as to make them ineligible. on the basis of income ceiling; 
and that there was no valid basis to single out newspaper establishments E 
for additional burden. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the benefit given to the employees of the newspaper 
industry in the year 1956 under Paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' 
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and continuing till date could be challenged F 
at this stage after a lapse of so many years by only one of the newspaper 
establishments in the country? 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, the employees of the newspaper G 
establishments are in a better position than the employees of other 
establishments and industries since the newspaper employees, without any 
income ceiling limit, are entitled to the benefits of the Employees' 
Provident Funds altd Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees' 
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. That has been the position for the last H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A nearly half a· century. On the other hand, right since the inception of the 
PF Act, the benefit of the Scheme has been denied to those employees who 
have more than a specified income. The benefit has been extended to 
weak

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.