REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 18-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 363 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
v. 
THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 655 of 2012) 
JANUARY 18, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Employees' Provident fund and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1952: 
ss. 17(1 A)(a) and 14-B - Exempted estab/i<;hment -
Defaults in payment of contributions to the Fund - Power to 
recover damages - Held: In a case of default by the employer 
of an exempted establishment, in making its contribution to 
A 
B 
c 
the Provident fund, s. 148 of the Act will be applicable -·If there 
D 
is a default in payment of contribution to the scheme, it 
amounts to contravention of s. 14-B and damages can be 
levied. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
E 
Articles 226 and 136 - Writ petition filed without availing 
of statutory remedy - Order of Regional Provident Fund 
Commissioner challenged by exempted established in writ 
petition - Held: Normally, the statutory remedy of appeal 
should be availed of - However, in view of peculiar facts of the 
F 
case, it wou!d not be correct exercise of judicial discretion to 
se nd the matter back to the remedy of appeal - Employees' 
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - s. 71 
- Appeal. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Purposive construction - Socia/ Welfare legislation -
Held: The normal canon of interpretation is that a social 
welfare legislation or a remedial statute receives liberal 
363 
G 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A construction and if there is any doubt, the same is resolved 
in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute 
is enacted - Further, a purposive approach is to be adopted 
which promotes the purposes of the Act - Employees' 
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1951 - ss. 
s 14-B and 17(1A)(a). 
The respondent-Company was granted exemption 
from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund 
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 subject to the 
conditions mentioned in the exemption notification and 
C the Explanation to sub-s. (1) of s.17 of the Act. As there 
were defaults on the part of the respondent-Company in 
making timely payment of dues towards the provident 
fund, proceedings were initiated against it and, ultimately, 
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the 
D respondent-company to remit the specified amount by 
way of damages to the respective accounts, failing which 
further action as provided under the Act would be 
initiated. The respondent-Company without filing the 
statutory appeal u/s 71 of the Act, filed a writ petition 
E before the High Court. The single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the writ petition holding that in view of the 
expression, "so far as may be" u/s 17(1A)(a) of the Act, 
the provisions in ss. 6, 7A, 8 and 14-8 could not be 
applied in their entirety. In appeal, the Division Bench of 
F the High Court held that ss. 6,7A, 8 and 148 would not 
be attracted to the defaulting 'exempted establishment'. 
Aggrieved, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 
filed the appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Normally, the statutory remedy of appeal 
should be availed of in a situation like this. However, in 
the peculiar facts of the case and specially having regard 
to the nature of the proceedings, the impugned order 
H having been passed in the year 2004 and thereafter the 
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS365 
CO. LTD. 
writ petition entertained by the two Benches of the High · A : 
Court and after that the matter remained pending before 
the Supreme Court, at this distance of time, to send the 
matter back to the remedy of appeal would not be a 
correct exercise of judicial discretion. [para 21] [378-C-E] 
2.1. 
The 
Employees' Provident Fund 
and 
B 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a social welfare 
legislation and is one of the earliest Acts after the 
Constitution came into existence. It effectuates the 
economic message of the Constitution as articulated in 
C 
the Directive Principles of State Policy. The normal canon 
of interpretation is that a social welfare legislation or a 
remedial statute receives liberal construction and if there 
is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class 
of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. 
(paras 22, 24 and 25] [378-F; 379-G; 380-8] 
D 
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. SD. College, 
Hoshiarpur and others 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 27 = (1997) 1 
sec 241 - relied on 
2.2. The open
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.