REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH versus SHRI T. S. HARIHARAN

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 01-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

305 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMWIONER, 
A 
ANDBRA PRADFSH 
v. 
SHRI T. S. HARIBARAN 
April I, 1971 
(J, M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
E>npluytti Provident Fund A.ct, 1957, s. 1(3)(a) & (b)-Employmenl 
of more than 20 person9--Casual labour whether to be included for dtttr-
mining number of employees-Minimum period of employment whether 
<·an be laid down. 
The respondent ran a lloteJ. Due to failure of water supply be had 
to employ some persons to brina water from the tank for a short period. 
The Provident Fund Commis,,ioner sou&ht to enforce the provisions of the 
Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1957 and the Provident Fund Scheme. 
1952, against him. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the 
High Court. It was held by the High Court that employment of more 
than twenty persons for a short period did not bring an establishment with-
in the proviso of s. 1(3)· (a) & (b) of the Act. It was also held that only 
those employees should be taken into consideration who were in employ-
ment for the full period of one year. While thus laying down the leaal 
position the Hiab Court left it to the authorities under the Act to apply the 
law to the facts of each case and dismissed the respondent's petition. The 
Provident Fund Commissioner appealed to this Coun for further clarifica-
tion. 
HELD: Considering the language of s. 1(3)(b) in the light of the 
provisions of s. 16 and s. I (S) as well as the aeneral scheme and object of 
the Act it would appear that employment of a few persons on account ,,f 
somr emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal 
contingency which is not a reauJar feature of the business of the <Stablisb-
111ent and which does not reflect its business prosperity or its financial 
capacity or stability from which it can reasonably be· concluded that the 
establishment can in the normal way bear the burden of the contribution 
towards the provident fund under the Act, would not be covered by the 
definition. The word 'employment' must therefore be construed as employ-
rnent in the regular course of business of the establishment, such employ· 
mcnt obviously would not include. employment of a few persons for a short 
period on account of some passing necessecity or some temporary emer· 
gency beyond the control of the company. The Hiah Court was riaht in 
holdioa •o. 
But it went wrona in holdina that the sub-section contem-
plated the required number of persons to work in the establishment con· 
tinuously for one year. It was difficult to impute to the Leaislature an 
intention to exclude from the application of the Act an establishment whic~ 
regularly employs for its aeneral business the required number of persons 
for a major pert of the year, say for 360 days every year, merely becau!IO 
the employmeili of the required number does not extend to full one year 
Therefore -the question must be determined in. each case on its own peculiar 
facts. 
[313C-O] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 
1967. 
20-1 S.C. India/71 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1! 
G 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A 
Appeal from the1udgment and order dated September J, 1964 
of the Andhra PradeSh High. Court itt, :Writ Petition No. 907 of 
1963. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
L. M. Singhvi and S; P. Nayar, fpr, !he. appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUI, J.-Tbe appellant in this appeal by certificate granted by 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 25, 1965 undor Art. 
133 (I) (b) of the Constitution is the Regional Provident Fund Com-
missioner, Andhra Pradesh. 
A Jar~e 11umber of writ petitions by 
various parties were filed in the Htgh Court praying for writs in 
the nature of mandamus directin~ the appellant to forbear from 
enforcing or taking other proceedmgs under the provisions of the 
Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the AcO 
and the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. 
With the exception of 
perhaps one writ petition, all the rest, including W. P. 907 of 1963 
presented by T. S. Haribaran, Proprietor, New Cochin Cafe, 
Ongole, respondent in this Court were dismissed. Certificates under 
Article 133 (!) (b) of the Constitution were secured by the appel-
lant in almost all the cases but the present is the. only appeal 
which now survives, all the rest having been dismissed for non-
prosecution. 
The writ petition of the respondent was dismissed which 
means that the final order made by 

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