Case study on
employees provident fund act 1952
M/S Gowri Shankar
Theatre v/s The Assistant Provident Fund
Provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, as in force for the time being, shall apply to every
cinema theater in which five or more workers are employed on any day, as if such cinema theater were an
establishment to which the aforesaid Act had
been applied by a notification of the Central Government under the proviso to
sub-section (3) of Section
1 thereof, and as if
each such worker were an employee within
the meaning of that Act.
On the facts of the case, it is not in
dispute that at the time when the writ petitioner has been making contribution
under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the number of employees was more than 5.
The grievance of the appellant is that
the theater was closed for some time and thereafter, it was reopened with four
new employees and therefore,
there is reconstitution and in such view of the matter the question of
applicability of Section
24 does not arise. A
reference to the pleadings made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition it is stated that due to financial disability the theater was closed
and thereafter it was re-opened and at the time of reopening, there were only
four employees.
It is not the case of the writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition as if the establishment was closed and thereafter
it was reconstituted with new four employees,
even though that is the submission made by the learned counsel now before this
Court. In any event, whether there was a closure of the theater and reopening
of the same with the new employees is
an immaterial fact. What is
required is that the theater which is run by the writ petitioner which has in fact made contribution under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952(19 of 1952)in respect of its
workers as per Section 24 of the Cine Workers and Cinema Theater Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981(50 of 1981). Under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which
is as extracted here under,
"(b)to any other establishment employing [twenty] or more persons or class
of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided that the Central Government may, after giving
not less than two months' notice or its intention so to do, by notification in
the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing the number of persons
less than [twenty] as may specified in the notification.
Enables the Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette to extend the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, to any other establishment wherein the number of employees are less than 20. The provision is made in order to
bring within the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 even
the establishments wherein less than 20 numbers are employed as workers. The Cine Workers and Cinema Theater Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 (50 of 1981) in respect of the Cinema Workers
makes it clear that in respect of the Cinema Theaters, the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 is applicable in cases where number of employees are 5 or more and therefore, the enactment should be taken as a
notification as per the provisions of Section
1(3) (b) to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952. As per Section
1(5) of the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 which is extracted
here under "(5)An establishment to which this Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below twenty"
Judgment
Once an establishment is covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,
merely because the number of employees has
come down, that will not take away the applicability of that Act. The contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that Section 1(5) of
the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 speaks
only 20, but as far as the appellants case is
concerned, the number of employees which
was 5, came down to 4 and therefore Section 1 (5) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 cannot
apply, has no meaning. When once the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has
been extended to Cine Workers as per Section 24 of
the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act 1981, necessarily all provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 are
to be applied by harmonious construction of Section 1(5) of
the Act in respect of Cine Theater. Therefore,
it should be taken as 5 instead of 20 since under the Cine Workers and Cinema
Theatre Workers (Regulation and Employment) Act 1981,
the minimum requirement is 5. In this view of the matter, there is no
difficulty to come to the conclusion that Section 1(5) of
the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 is
applicable to the appellant establishment.