R. RAMAKRISHNA RAO versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 23-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
R. RAMAKRISHNA RAO 
v. 
~"' ~ "'"· OF KERAl.,l\ 
;~;. ~ :: :!3, 1968 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Employees Provident Funds Act (19 of 1952), s. 1(3)(b) ands. 16 
(l)(b)-Proprietor of hotel starting new hotel-Number of emplo.vees 
reaching twenty-Whether employer can claim exemption from appUca· 
tlon of Act for 5 y•ars.' 
The appellant started running a hotel in 1948. In 1949 he started a 
seocnd hotel and in 1959 a third in the same place. 
On the addition of 
the 3rd hotel the number of employees reached t1:0 figure 20. 
On the question whether, even if the three hotels were taken together 
as one establishment, the proprietor could not .' ";' ''r,der s. 16(1) (b) 
of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, exe1~1pti0": (r!1IT· the appJica~ 
tion of the provisions of the Act for a period of five y<ars from 1959. 
HELD : The period should be counted only from 1948, when the 
establishment was first set up. 
Under s. 1(3)(b) the Act applies to establishments employing 20 or 
more persons. The word 'employing' only describes the establishments to 
which the Act applies and does not show that there ·should be continuity 
of employment of 20 persons for 5 years. 
Under s. 16(1) (b), in the 
case of a new establishment, the period Of 5 years is counted forward from 
the date the e·stablishment is set up but in the case of an existing establish-
ment from the date tho establishment has been set up. The intention in 
either case is to give a breathing time to new establishments. [822 C, D, 
E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Criminal Appeals 
Nos. 94 of 1965. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
F 
January 11, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revi· 
sion Petition No. 90, 107 and 108 of 1964. 
G 
H 
B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant (in 
all the appeals) 
R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent (in all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. The appellant is the proprietor of two es-
tablishments called Ananda Bhavan Boarding & Lodging and Ho-
tel Brinda. Palghat. He was convicted by the Special 1st Class Ma-
gistrate, Kozhikode on three counts under paragraphs 76(c) and 
( e) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 read with 
s. 14 of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 for having 
failed to submit the returns, statements and other documents re-
quired by the Scheme in respect of three quarters July to 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 2 S C.R. 
September, 1961, October to December, 1961 and January to 
A 
Ma.rch, 1 962: . He. was fin.ed Rs. 25 on each count. 
His appli-
cation for rev1s1on m the High Court of Kerala was dismissed. He 
has now filed these appeals by special leave of this Court. 
Ananda Bhavan Boarding & Lodging was started by him on 
December 6, 1949 and Hotel Brinda on January 15, 1959. He 
had a third establishment which went under the name of Anand 
Bhavan started on September 15, 1948 but it was sold by him 
in April, 1962. Complaints were filed against him by the Provi-
dent Fund Inspector, Trichur on December 16, 1962, alleging 
that he had contravened paragraphs 36(2)(a) and (b) and 38 
of the Scheme. 
Under these provisions he was required to submit 
within 15 days of the close of the month a return of the employees 
qualified to become members of the Fund for the first time during 
the preceeding month together with a declaration of such quali-
fying employees and to pay to each member his wages in respect 
of any period or part of tht period for \Vhich contributions were 
payable after deducting the employees' contribution from his 
wages which together with his own contribution as well as an 
administrative charge were to be paid to a Fund established under 
the Scheme. 
He was also required to forward to the Commis-
sioner within 15 days of the close of the month a consolidated 
statement. 
The appellant contended that two employees were 
working in the Ananda Bhavan Lodging and 11 members in the 
Hotel Brinda. He claimed exemption for five years under the Act. 
His further defence was that the three estalilishments formed dif-
ferent units and that 20 persons were not employed in any one 
of these places and that even if the three establishments could be 
deemed to ~ a single establishment the number of employees 
reached the figure (which the Act puts down as the minimum) 
after Hotel Brinda was opened in January 1959 and he was en-
titled to an exemption under

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