LexM/S. S.K. NASIRUDDIN BEED! MERCHANT LTD. versus CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MIS. S.K. NASIRUDDIN BEED! MERCHANT LTD.
v.
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR.
JANUARY 30, 2001
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA JJ.]
Labour Law:
E111p/oyees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, f'l52.
C Section 7-A.
Manufacture of Beedis-By ho111e irorkers engaged through
contractors-Applicability of Act-Manufacturer of beedis employed home
workers through contractors--Contribution to\\'ards their prol'idenl fimd
D demanded in 1977-0n challenge High Court dismissed the writ petition
holding that Act was applicable to such home workers also-fi"esh demand
for July 1977 to August 1986 demanded-Writ petition dismissed-Supreme
Coun dismissed SLP and manufacturer fi1rnished particulars of home workers
to deter111ine its liability-Subsequently, liability fixed under s. 7-A-
Manufacturer sought waiver fi-0111 payment of home workers' contribution
.from October 1985 lo May 3, 1993 on the ground that it was not able to
collect the same-Validity of-Held: The Act is applicable even in respect
of home workers engaged through contractors-The 1110111ent the Act beco111es
applicable lo the ho111e workers liability under s. 7-A arises-Manufacrurer
cannot rely upon his own /aches in not deducting the wages Ji-om 1985
onward~-Hence, he is liable to 111ake the payment of the home workers'
contribution from October 1985 to May 3, 1993.
The appellant, a manufacturer of beedis, employed home workers
through a contractor. The appellant had not deducted from the wages of the
home workers for contribution towards their provident fund on the ground
that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
was not applicable to such workers. The respondent in 1977 demanded from
the appellant contributions towards the provident fund under Section 7-A of
the Act. The writ petition challenging the aforesaid demand was dismissed by
the High Court holding that the Act was applicable to such home workers
also. A fresh demand was raised for the period July 1977 to August 1986,
692
--
SK. NASIRUDDIN BEED! MERCHANT LTD.''· C.P.F.C.
693
~...-.
which was challenged in two writ petitions. These writ petitions were A
dismissed. Thts Court dismissed the SLPs with the direction that the appellant
could collect the names of the beedi workers who worked for it through their
contractors and furnish the names of all the workers to the Provident Fund
Commissioner who thereafter would verify these names and calculate the
liability of the appellant. The appellant furnished the particulars of the home B
workers and the respondent determined the liability of the appellant under
. ,ii('
Section 7-A of the Act. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court for waiver of payment of the home workers' contribution from October
1985 to May 3, 1993 on the ground that it had not been able to collect the
same. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
-¥
HELD : I. The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 would be applicable even in respect of home workers engaged
through contractors and cannot be cavilled any more. [698-B-C]
D
Manga/ore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 1832
-:(
and P.M Patel & Sons v. Union of India, AIR (1987) SC 447, relied on.
,,
2. The applicability of the Act to any class of employees is not determined
or decided by any proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act but under the
provisions of the Act itself. When the Act became applicable to the employees E
l
in question, the liability arises. What is done under Section 7-A oftheAct is
only determination or quantification of the same. [698-D-El
~
3. The appellant is protected for the period of coverage by the general
stay order given by this Court on the applicability of the Act to the industry
in question till the date of the final judgment; otherwise steps would have F
been taken in terms of the formal notice issued to the appellant in 1977
itself. Thus in respect of the period from June 1977 to September 1985
there was waiver of the liability by reason of the clarification issued by the
Government under paragraph 78 of the Scheme. On the disposal of the matter
by this Court in September 1985 the liability to deposit the employees' G
·-+
contribution became very clear. Though in law respondents were entitled to
recover even for the period from June 1977, in view of the directioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.