UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M/S. MURUGAN TALKIES

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
MIS. MURUGAN TALKIES 
DECEMBER 12, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Labour laws : 
Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employ-
C ment) Act, 1981 : Sections 24 and 25. 
Provident FwuJ-Share of contribution-Workmen and theater owners 
directed to deposit their share of contribution to provident fund from date of 
filing writ petitions in High Court-Providellt Fund Act, 1952. 
D 
The respondent challenged before the High Court the validity or 
Sections 24 and 25 or Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regula· 
tion or Employment) Act, 1981 and the notification of Ministry or Labour, 
Government or India. The High Court while upholding validity of the Act 
had given relief to the respondent to pay its share or the contribution to 
the provident fund w.e.r the date of jndgment. Aggrieved by the High 
E Court's judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
F 
On behalf or the respondent it was contended that some workmen 
had retired and it would be inequitable to ueduct their share or contribu-
tion from their meagre wages with retrospective period. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Since some or the workmen have already retired and 
deduction from date of enforcement of the notification would cause great 
hardship to some existing workmen, they cannot be made to bear the 
G burden of their contribution with retrospective effect. [620-C] 
1.2. As regards the liability of the owners of the theatres who ap-
proached the High Court, the operation of the notification was stated at 
their instance. The High Court was wholly unjustified in granting the same 
relief to these owners/licencees. After their writ petitions were dismissed, 
H they were to bear the liability from the date on which the respective owners 
618 
U.0.1. v. MURUGANTALKIES 
619 
of the theatres or the licencees, who had filed the writ petition in the High A 
Court, are made liable to deposit their share of contribution towards 
provident fund account under the scheme. [620-E] 
District Exhibitors Association, Muzaffarnagar & Ors. v. Union of India 
& Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 119, relied on. 
2. The respondent and all the theatre owners are directed to deposit 
their share of contribution to the provident fund account from the respec-
tive date on which they filed the writ petition in the High Court The 
appellants should intimate all of them the date on which they had filed the 
writ petitions and call upon them to pay their share of contribution. 
[620-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9407 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and order dated 24.11.94 of the Madras High 
B 
c 
Court i" ·.v.P. No. 12533/86. 
D 
T.C. Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. 
K.M. Vijayan and K.V. Mohan for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 12533/86 dated November 
24, 1994. The respondent and others challenged the validity of Sections 24 
E 
and 25 of Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of 
Employment) Act (50 of 1981)(for short 'the Act') and the notification of F 
Government of India bearing No. 35016 issued by Ministry of Labour on 
April 30, 1986. The Division Bench while upholding the validity of the Act 
has given relief to the respondent to pay their share of the contribution 
w.e.f. the date of judgment dated November 24, 1994. 
The Union of India has filed this appeal. The controversy is no longer G 
res integra. This Court in District Exhibitors Association Muzffamagar & Ors. 
v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 119 upholds the validity of the 
provisions and the rules. However, it was held that the employer's contribu-
tion should be made effective from the date of the order setting aside the 
retrospective operation of the notification. It can thus be concluded that H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
from the date of the notification the owners of the Cinema Theatre are 
liable to contribute their share and also entitle to deduct from the wages 
of the workmen towards their share of provident fund and to have it 
credited to the account maintained by the appropriate authority in that 
behalf. 
B 
It is contended for the respondents that the High Court has granted 
the relief taking into consideration that some workmen had retired and it 
would be inequitable to deduct from the meagr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.