LexREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA versus WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PROVIDENT FUND EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
816
A
B
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND '~oMMISSIONER
'
I
KARNATAKA
v.
WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL
SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PROVIDENT FUND
EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.
September 26, 1984
C
(0. CeiNNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VBNKATARAMIAH, JI.]
D
E
F
E
Industrial Disp14tes Act, 1947-Section 2 (a)-Appropriate Government-
Whether Government of a State can be treated as the •appropriate Government'
under section 2 (a) in relation to an industrial dispute concerning office of
Rezional Provident Fund organisation e31ablished by the Central Governn1ent
for that State utider the Employees' Provident Fu1tds and Afi.rcellaneous provi-
sions Aet, 1952.
Words and Phrau1-•Authorfty'-Ord/nary m«1ning of.
Words and Phrasas-'Undar tha authority of' -Meaning of.
The Government of Karnataka State made a reference under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
referring certain dispute between the Regional Provident Fund Oraanisaticn
established by the Central Government for that State under the Employees'
Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and its employee& to the
Industrial Tribunal. The Regional Provident Fund Organisation raised two
preliminary objections viz. that the activity carried on by the manaaement
was not an industry and that the State Government was not the appropriate
Government under the Act in relation to the dispute between it and its
en1ployees. The Tribunal neaatived both the contentions.
1~he manae;ement
filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High
Court. The only contention urged by the management v..as that the State
Government beine not the appropriate Government under the Act is for as
the dispute was concerned, it could not refer the dispute under section 10 or
the Act. A sinale Judae accepted the contention. In B.ppeal filed by the
workrr.en, a Division Bench of the Hi~h Court held that the State Govern·
ment was the appropriata Government for purposes of the dispute in question.
Hence this appeal by lhe man~gernent by special leave against the judgment
of the Division Bench.
Tbe rnanag{ment contended that the industry in
question fe11 under section 2 (a) (i) of the Acl as it was an industry carried on
under the authority of the Central Government and hence the Central
Government alone could act as the appropriate Government in relation to th~
dispute con~erned.
..
I .,
'
t •
,.
1
,
i
•
,i;,
PF. COMMR. v. K.P.F.E. UNION
817
Allowing the Appeal,
HELD : In order to decide whether the Central Government is the
appropriate Government under the Act or not in this case it has got to be
determined whether the activity carried on under the Provident Funds Act is
being carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government as
provided in section 2 (a) of the Act. The word authority in section 2 (a) of
the Act must be construed according to its ordinary meaning and therefore
must mean a l<!gal power given by one person to another to do an act. The
words •under the authority of' means pursuant to the authority, such as
whether the agent or the servant act under or pursuant to the authority of
of his principal or master. [821F-H)
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The The State of Bihar & Ors.,
[1969) 3 S.C.R 995, Graham v. Public Works Commissioner, [1901] 2 KB 781
and Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr.,
[1975) 3 S.C.R. 619, referred to.
In the instant case, the activity carried on by the Central Board or the
State Boards under the Provident Funds Act is one traceable to Article 43 of
the Constitution which requires the State to endeavour to secure by suitable
tegislation or economic ·-organisation or in any other way to all workers,
agricultural or industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of
work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and
cultural opportunities. It is a part of the programme of every welfare State
which our countrY is. Institutions engaged in matters of such high public
interest or performing such high public functions by vfrtue of their very
nature performed governmental functions. They are truly the agents of the
Government and they function under the authority of the Government as
provide<l in the statute because the Central Government could have for the
purpose of introducing the scheme of compulsory contribution to the provi-
dent fund. set 'up aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.