UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus OGALE GLASS WORKS

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 01-09-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

525 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
OGA,LE GLASS WORKS 
September 1, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952-Scope of s. 
t9A of the 
A ct-Whether decision under s. 19A of the Act by the Central Govern-
n1e111 is final in the facts and circurnsu1nces of the case. 
The respondent c·ompany was manJJfactu'ring various articles ip.ch~ding 
Lc1ntern and Safety Stoves etc. 
Jn N9vember I 952, _Employees ~rov1~ent 
Fund Act, \Vas passed -and 'the conipany was making regular contnhu-
,tion;~ to the Provident Fund for all employees. 
After sometime another establishment which was carrying on si1nilar 
business filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court contesting the claim 
of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. that the Act applied to 
all sections of the glass works. 
The Bombay High Court held that the 
Act and the scheme applied only to such sections of tJie company as we~e 
covered by Sch. I of the Act and not to all sections. 
Against this dec_:-
sion. an appeal was preferred before this Court and the Court reversed'-
thc decision of the High Court and held that the Act and the scheme 
applied to nil employees working under the said glass works. 
Regio'nai Provide~t f"und Com1nissioner, Bombay v. Shree Krishn(f. 
Metal Manufact~ring Co., Bliandra, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 815. 
The respondent, altfiougb was making contributions in respect of all its 
employees, discontinued to do so after the decision of the High Court 
in the above matte'r, except for those empJoy~es who were working#in the 
Lantern and Stove Sections. 
Thereafter, the employees raised a dispute, 
and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra and 
the Industrial Tribunal gave its award against the management but 
eJ1<empted the respondent company from contributing for certain years. 
After the decision of this Court in Shree Krishna Metar Co.'s case, the 
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, called upon the respondent to 
make contributions but the respondent pleaded that there has been already 
a decision by the Centra~ Government under s. 19A of the Act holding 
that the Act and the scheme applied only to the Lantern and. Stove Sec' 
tions and therefore the respondent asked for refund of the contributions 
made for employees of other sections and maintained that the Department 
was not entitled to., call upon the company to m·ake contributioqs for the 
years in question. 
The Department threatened to take cOei'CiVe stePs ·and 
in consequence, respondent filed a wiit petition in the Nagpur Bench of 
the Bombay High Court, challenging the demand tnade by the Regional 
Provident Fund Commissioner ancl sought relief. 
The High ·court held that in view·of the Central Governmen~ decision 
~nder s. !9~ .of the Act, tl;le appellants have n<>-r~ght to reopen. t~e ques-
non. of habtlt!y of .the respondent. 
On appeal. the folk>wing qtieslions 
H 
arose for ~onstderation : (t) Whether there has been a decision· ol the 
Central Government under s. 19A of the Act. 
(ii) the effect of the 
·Awa':"-P:"sed by the .Industrial !dbunal exempting the company, from 
contQbutmg for-certau.i years; (m) whether the company is liable .to pay 
the .administrative..charges for t:tie exempted periods. Allowing th.e appeal,. 
l S-1340 Sup. Cl/71 
. 
. 
, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 1 S.C.R. 
HELD : ( 1) From the evidence it is clear that there has been no· 
A 
final decision by the Central Government under s. !9A of the Act. It 
was only a Lmited decision not to apply the Act and the scheme in view 
of the 1udgment of the Bombay High Court and till the final decision of 
the .appeal by this Court. After the matter is finally disposed of by this 
Court, the appellants arc perfectly justified in demanding contributions 
for all employees from the respondent in terms of the demand notice. 
,f545 EJ 
( 2) Although the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal exempted 
the manag.!ment from contribut:ng for a certain number of years, it is 
not relevant for the purpose of applying the Act an,d the scheme. More-
over, the appellants were not parties to the award. 
Since the Act and 
the schome applies to all sections of the respondent, the respondent is 
liable to make contributions at the rate specified in the Act. 
The rate 
'Pecified by the Industrial Tribunal is not in accordanc::c with the Act. 
Therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal lloes not stand in the 
wa

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