http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

DISTRICT EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION MUZAFFARNAGARAND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/04/1991

BENCH:

YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

BENCH:

YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:

1991 AIR 1381 1991 SCR (2) 477

1991 SCC (3) 119 JT 1991 (2) 330

1991 SCALE (1)788

ACT:

Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952/Employees'

Provident Scheme, 1952: Sections 1,5,6,7/Paragraphs 30, 32-

Cine workers and Cinema theatre workers-Extension of

berefits to-Notification-Issue of-Retrospective effect-

Validity of-Emmployees, contribution for the retrospective

period-payment of-Whether employer is liable-Deduction

thereof from wages payable to employees in future-Whether

permissible.

HEADNOTE:

On 30.4.1986, a Notification was issued by the

Government of India amending the scheme under the Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in

conformity with Section 24 of the Cine Workers and Cinema

Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981, with

retrospective effect from 1.10.1984. The effect of the

amendment was to extend the benefit of the Provident Funds

Act and the Scheme thereunder to the Cine Workers and Cinema

theatre workers. The appellants challenged the validity of

the Notification before the High Court by way of writ

Petitions, contending that the said Notification was ultra-

vires the provisions of the Provident Fund Act since the

Central Government could not extent the scheme to an

establishment which is neither an industry nor a notified

establishment under Section 3(b) of the Act and there was no

liability under the scheme to make contribution towards

Provident Fund in respect of the employees who ceased to be

Cinema workers before 30.4.1986. It was further contended

that calling upon the employers to contribute arrears from

the date the scheme was made applicable led to hardship and

injustice and hence violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court.In

their appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that

so long as the Notification as required by the proviso to

Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act has not been

issued, the Act cannot be made applicable to them and even

assuming that Section 24 of the Cinema Theatre Workers Act

takes the place of the required Notification, an express

notification under Section 5 would be required. It was also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

contended

478

that under Section 6 of the Provident Funds Act the

liability is fixed only for employers'share of contribution

and not the employees'share, and since paragraph 30 of the

Provident Fund Scheme was not made applicable, there arose

no liability of the employers to pay employees'share and as

the appellants were being asked to pay the contribution of

the employees' share retrospectively without the

corresponding right of employer to recover it from the wages

of employees, it was harsh and unjust.

On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that it

might be possible for the appellants to make deduction from

subsequent wages of workmen with the consent of the

Inspector as required under the third proviso to para 32(1)

of the Provident Fund Scheme.

Partly allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. Section 24 of the Cine Workers and Cinema

Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 has

fulfilled the purpose of the Notification which the Central

Government could have issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the

Provident Funds Act read with the proviso. Therefore, no

further Notification as contemplated by Section 1(3)(b) of

the Provident Funds Act was necessary. Section 24 has taken

the place of the Notification contemplated by Section

1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act read with the proviso

thereto. Therfore, the Provident Funds Act became applicable

to the theatres who employ five or more workers with effect

from 1st October, 1984. Again in view of Section 6 of the

Provident Funds Act, the employers became liable to pay

their contribution to the fund as soon as the Act came into

force i.e.w.e.f.1st October, 1984. [488B-D]

M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. v. union of India, [1962]

(Suppl) 3 SCR 837 and M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd.v.Union of

India and Ors., [1965] 2 SCR 686, distinguished.

2. It is only by the Notification dated 30.4.1986 that

the Provident Funds Scheme was amended so as to be made

applicable in respect of the cinema theatres employing five

or more persons. Without such a Notification the Scheme has

been made applicable to the cinema theatres covered by the

Notification with effect from 1st October, 1984. This could

be done in view of not only the provisions of Section 5(2)

of the Provident Funds Act but also in view of Section 7(1)

of the Provident Funds Act. Both these provisions confer

express powers of making the

479

Scheme applicable retrospectively.[488E-G]

3. It is obvious from paras 30 and 32 of the Provident

Funds Scheme that the employer has to pay the contribution

of the employee's share, but he has a right to recover that

payment by deducting the same from the wages due and payable

to the employees. It is significant to note that the

deduction is not from the wages payable for any period but

only from the wages for the period in respect of which the

contribution is payable and no deduction could be made from

any other wages payable to the employees. In other words,

the payment of employees'contribution by the employer with

the corresponding right to deduct the same from the wages of

the employees could be only for the current period during

which the employer has also to pay his contribution. [489A-

E]

4. In the instant case, for the period from 1st

October, 1984 up to the date of the Notification i.e.30th

April 1986 the employer has paid the full wages to the

employees since during that period, there was no scheme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

applicable to his establishment. By retrospectively

applying the scheme, he could not be asked to pay the

employees' contribution for the period antecedent to the

notification. The Act and the Scheme neither permit any such

payment nor deduction . The employer cannot be saddled with

the liability to pay the employees' contribution for the

retrospective period, since he has no right to deduct the

same from the future wages payable to the employees. [489F-

G]

5. The third proviso to paragraph 32(1)of the Provident

Funds Scheme could be taken advantage of by the employer

only where no deduction has been made from the wages of the

employees due to accidental mistake or clerical error when

the scheme is operative. Such deduction which has not been

made by accidental mistake or clerical error, could be made

from the subsequent wages with the consent in writing of the

Inspector concerned. The present case is not covered by the

third proviso. The employer could not have made the

deduction prior to the notification dated 30th April, 1986

since the Scheme was not applicable then. The Scheme has

been given retrospective effect w.e.f. 1st October, 1984.

The employer, therefore, cannot take the benefit of the

third proviso to para 32(1) for deducting the

employees'contribution in their wages payable in

future.[489H;490A-C]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 998-999

of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dasted 1.3.1990 of the

Allahabad

480

High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 11465 & 3085 of 1987.

Satish Chandra, and Prashant Bhushan for the

Appellants.

V.C.Mahajan, S.D. Sharma, S.N.Terdol and Mrs.Suri for

the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. 1. Civil Appeal Nos. 998 and 999 of

1991 have been filed against the judgment of the Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 1st March, 1990

whereby the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ

petitions filed by the District Exhibitors Association,

Muzaffarnagar and others as well as some other Theatres

upholding the Notification dated 30th April, 1986 issued by

the Central Government under Section 5 read with sub-section

(1) of Section 7 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (hereinafter referred to

as`the Provident Funds Act').The main judgment was delivered

by the High Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition

filed on behalf of Shakti Theatre, Civil Lines, Bijnore,

which was followed in the petition filled by the District

Exhibitors Association Muzaffarnagar and others and some

other writ petitions.Before us also the Notification dated

30th April, 1986 of the Goernment of India, Ministry of

Labour, amending the Employees' provident Funds Scheme, 1952

(For short `Scheme') issued under the Provident Funds Act

has been challenged.

2.The Provident Funds Act came into force on 14th

March,1952. The preamble of the Act states that it is an Act

to provide for the institution of provident funds, family

pension fund and deposit-linked insurance fund for employees

in factories and other establishments. The Act by Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

1(3) makes it applicable to every factory referred to in

clause (a) and also to any other establishment referred to

in clause (b) employing twenty or more persons or class of

such establishments which the Central Government may, by

Notification in the Official Gazette, specify in that

behalf. The scheme under Section 5 alongwith other schemes

were issued in 1952. The Provident Funds Act by

Notification of the Government of India issued on 31st July,

1961, under Section 1(3) was made applicable to cinema

theatres employing twenty or more persons.

3. The Cine-workers and Cinema Theatre Workers

(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred

to as `the Cinema

481

Theatre Workers Act) received the assent of the President on

24th December, 1981, and was published in the Gazette on the

same day. The Cinema Theatre Workers Act came into force

with effect from 1st October, 1984. The preamble of the Act

says that it is to provide for the regulation of the

conditions of employment of certain cine-workers and cinema

theatre workers and for matters connected therewith. Section

2(a) defines `cinema theatre' to mean a place which is

licensed under Part 111 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, or

under any other law for the time being in force in a State

for the exhibition of cinematograph films. Section 24

enacts:

"The provisions of the Employees~ Provident Funds

and Miscellaneouss Provisions Act, 1952, as in

force for the time being, shall apply to every

cinema theatre in which five or more workers are

employed on any day, as if such cinema theatre 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."

4. The Notification of the Government of India amending

the Scheme under the Provident Funds Act was issued in

conformity with Section 24 of the Cinema Theatre Workers

Act. The impugned Notification dated 30th April, 1986 is

being reproduced for facility of under-standing the

submissions made on behalf of the appellants:

`NOTIFICATION

G.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 5 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of

the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central

Government hereby makes the following Scheme

further to further to amend the Employees'

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 namely;

1. This Scheme may be called the Employees'

Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 1986.

2. In the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme in

paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (3), in clause (b)

after item (XOV11) the following item shall be

added, namely:

482

`(XOV11) as respect the Cinema Theatre employing 5

or more workers as specified in Section 24 of the

Cine WorKers and Cinema Theatres Workers

(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 (50 of 1981)

be deemed to have come into force with effect from

the 1st day of October, 1984'.

(No. S 35016/1/86-SS11)

Sd/-A.K.Bhattari

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

Under Secretary

30.4.1986'

5. A perusal of the Notification shows that the Scheme

has been retrospectively made applicable in respect of

cinema theatres employing five or more workers as specified

in Section 24 of the Cinema Theatre Workers Act with effect

from 1st October , 1984 though the Notification was issued

on 30th April, 1986. 1st October, 1984 is also the date of

coming into force of Cinema Theatre Workers Act.

6. Before the High Court the main arguments raised by

the appellants were:

a) that the Notification dated 30th April 1986 was

ultra vires of the provisions of the provident

Funds Act inasmuch as the Central Government could

not extend the scheme to an establishment which is

neither an industry nor a notified establishment

under Section 3(b) of the Provident Funds Act;

b) that there was no liability under the scheme

framed by the Central Government to make

contribution towards the provident fund in respect

of the employees who ceased to be a cinema employee

before the Provident Funds Act came into force from

30th April,1986:and

c) that the demand of the Provident Funds

Commissioner from the employers about the arrears

of contribution even for prediscovery period i.e.

the date from which the scheme became applicable to

employers, who were called upon to pay contribution

by notice, leads to hardship and injustice and,

therefore, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

483

7. The High Court while dealing with these

submissions took the view that Section 24 of the

Cinema Theatre Workers Act has applied the

provisions of the Provident Funds Act to every

cinema theatre in which five or more workers were

employed on any day, as if such cinema theatre were

an establishment to which the provisions of the

Provident Funds had been applied by a Notification

of the Central Government under the proviso to

clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the

Provident Funds Act. The High Court, in view of

the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed

on behalf of the respondent as well as on the

interpretation of the scheme, took the view that

only those employees who were in employment on 30th

April, 1986 and had not ceased working in a cinema

in respect of whom the benefit was being claimed,

could be entitled to get the benefit of the scheme.

In the notice the demand of contribution was sought

under the Sachem in respect of the employees

working on 30th April, 1986 with effect from Ist

October, 1984. The High Court took the view that

since the demand was made for the employers'

contribution in respect of the employees who were

working on 30th April, 1986, it was wrong to argue

that the scheme was being incorrectly applied.

Those workers who had left the cinema and had

ceased to be its workers on 3oth April, 1986, would

certainly not be entitled to any benefit under the

scheme. Regarding the challenge to the demand by

the Provident Fund Commissioner from the employers

about the arrears of contribution, the High Court

felt that there was no substance in that argument.

8. Before us Mr. Satish Chandra, learned counsel for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

the appellants submitted:

i) that the Provident Funds Act would not be

applicable so long as the Notification as required

by the proviso to Section 1(3)(b) has not been

issued;

ii) even if we assume that Section 24 of the Cinema

Theatre Workers Act takes the place of a

Notification being issued as contemplated by the

proviso to Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds

Act, an express Notification under Section 5 is

required to make the scheme applicable to those

establishments and without such a Notification the

scheme will not be applicable:

iii) that under Section 6 of the Provident Funds

Act, the liability is only fixed for employers;

share of contribution towards Provident Funds and

there is no liability fixed to

484

pay employees' share, and unless paragraph 30 of

the scheme is made applicable there is no inability

of the employers to pay employees' share;

iv) that the Notification is very harsh and unjust

as the appellants are being asked to pay the

contribution of the employees share to the

Provident Fund Account retrospectively without the

corresponding right of employer to recover it from

the wages of employees.

9. It may be mentioned that the vires of any of the

provision of the Provident Funds Act or the Scheme has not

been challenged before us. As would be seen from the

preamble of the Provident Funds Act, the Act is intended for

the benefit of the employees. It is also so clear from its

objects and reasons extracted below:

"The question of making some provision for the

future of the industrial worker after he retires or

for his dependants in case of his early death, has

been under consideration for some years. The ideal

way would have been provision through old age and

survivors' pensions as has been done in the

industrially advance countries. But in the

prevailing conditions in India the institution of a

pension scheme cannot be visualised in the near

future. Another alternative maY be for provision of

gratuities after a prescribed period of service.

The main defect of a gratuity scheme, however, is

that amount paid to a worker or his dependants

would be small, as the worker, would not himself he

making any contribution to the fund. Taking into

account the various difficulties, financial and

administrative, the most appropriate course appears

to be the institution compulsorily of contributory

provident funds in which both the worker and the

employer would contribute. Apart from other

advantages, there is the obvious one of cultivating

among the workers a spirit of saving something

regularly. The institution of a provident fund of

this type would also encourage the stabilisation of

a steady labour force in industrial centres".

10. It is a legislation for the benefit of the worker

sections of the society and the beneficial legislation is

made applicable to cinema theatres if it employs five or

more workers. The classification of cinema theatres as a

separate class for purposes of coverage under the Provi-

485

dent Funds Act has also not been challenged.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

11. Further no challenge has been made to any of the

provision of the Cinema Theatre Workers Act.

12. Before we deal with the submissions of learned

counsel for the appellants we may notice the relevant part

of provisions of the Provident Funds Act and the Scheme.

Section 1(3) of the Provident Funds Act reads as follows:

"Subject to the provisions contained in Section 16,

it applies-

(a) to very establishment which is a factory

engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 and

in which twenty or more persons are employed, and

(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 of its

intention so to do, by notification in the Official

Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any

establishment employing such number of persons less

than twenty as may be specified in the

notification."

13. Section 5(1) and (2) provide as follows:

"5. Employees' Provident Fund Schemes-

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in

the Official Gazette, frame a Scheme to be called

the Employees' Provident fund Scheme for the

establishment of provident funds under this Act

for employees or for any class of employees and

specify the establishments or class of

establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply

and there shall be established as soon as may be

after the framing of Scheme, a Fund in accordance

with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme.

(1-A)..... ..... .....

(1-B)..... ..... .....

486

(2) A Scheme framed under sub-section (1) may

provide that any of its provisions shall take

effect either prospectively or retrospectively on

such date as may be specified in this behalf in the

Scheme"

14. The relevant part of Section 6 reads as follows:

"6. Contributions and matters which may be

provided for in Schemes The contribution which

shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be

eight and one third per cent of the basic wages,

dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any,

for the time being payable to each of the

employees, whether employed by him directly or by

or through a contractor, and the employee's

contributions shall be equal to the contribution

payable by the employer in respect of him and may,

if any employee so desires, b an amount exceeding

eight and one-third per cent of his basic wages,

dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any,

subject to the condition that the employer shall

not be under an obligation to pay any contribution

over and above his contribution payable under this

section."

15. Para 1(1) and relevant parts of paras 1(3)(a) and

1(3)(b) of the Scheme read as follows:-

"1. Short title and application-(1) This Scheme

may be called the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme

1952.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

(2)...... ..... .....

(3)(a) Subject to the provisions of Sections 16 and

17 of the Act, this Scheme shall apply to all

factories and other establishments to which the Act

applies or is applied under sub-section (3) or sub-

section 4(1) of Section 1 or Section 3 thereof:

.......... ......

(b) Provisions of this Scheme shall-

...... ....... ......

(xcviii) as respect the cinema theatres employing 5

or more workers as specified in Section 24 of the

Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatres Workers

(Regulations of Employment) Act, 1981 (50 of 1981)

be deemed to have come into force with effect from

the 1st day of October, 1984."

487

16. The relevant parts of paras 30 and 32 of the

Scheme read as follows:

"30. Payment of contribution-

(1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay

both the contribution payable by himself in this

Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution

and also, on behalf of the member employed by him

directly or by or through a contractor, the

contribution payable by such member's in the Scheme

referred to as the member's contribution.

(2)..... ...... .....

(3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal

employer to pay both the contribution payable by

himself in respect of the employees directly

employed by him and also in respect of the

employees employed by or through a contractor and

also administrative charges.

Explanation ...... ....... .......

32. Recovery of a member's share or contribution

(1) The amount of a member's contribution paid by

the employer or a contractor shall, notwithstanding

the provisions in this Scheme or any law for the

time being in force or any contract to the

contrary, be recoverable by means of deduction from

the wages of the member and otherwise:

Provided that no such deduction may be made from

any wage other than that which is paid in respect

of the period or part of the period in respect of

which the contribution is payable:

......... ...... ......

Provided further that where no such deduction has

been made on account of an accidental mistake or a

clerical error, such deduction may, with the

consent in writting of the Inspector, be made from

the subsequent wages.

(2)...... ...... ......

(3)...... ...... ......

17. A combined reading of Section 6 of the Provident

Funds Act

488

and paras 30 to 32 of the Scheme is that the contribution to

the Provident Fund is to be 12 1/2% of the basic wages and

dearness allowance, that is to be borne equally by the

employer and the employee and that the employer is to pay

the whole of it, half on his account, and the other half on

account of the employee and he is to recoup himself by

deducting it from the wages of the employee.

18. A bare reading of Section 24 of the Cinema Theatre

Workers Act shows that it has fulfilled the purpose of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

Notification which the Central Government could have issued

under Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act read with

the proviso. Therefore, no further Notification as

contemplated by Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident Funds Act

was necessary. Section 24 has taken the place of the

Notification contemplated by Section 1(3) (b) of the

Provident Funds Act read with the proviso thereto.

Therefore the Provident Funds Act became applicable to the

theatres who employ five or more workers with effect from

1st October, 1984. Again in view of Section 6 of the

Provident Funds Act, noticed earlier, the employers became

liable to pay their contribution to the fund as soon as the

Act came into force i.e. w.e.f. 1st October, 1984.

19. It is also clear from reading of Section 5 of the

Provident Funds Act that before the Provident Funds Scheme

can become applicable, the Central Government has to frame a

Scheme and also specify the establishment to which the said

Scheme shall apply. Till the impugned Notification dated

30th April, 1986 was published the Scheme was not applicable

to such cinema theatres who are employing less than 20

employees and it became applicable to cinema theatres

employing five or more workers only when the impugned

Notification was issued under Section 5 of the Provident

Funds Act. It is only by the impugned Notification that the

scheme was amended so as to be made applicable in respect of

cinema theatres employing five or more persons. Without

such a Notification the Scheme would not have became

applicable. The Notification on the face of it shows that

the Scheme has been made applicable to the cinema theatres

covered by the Notification with effect from 1st October,

1984. This could be done in view of not only the provisions

of Section 5(2) of the Provident Funds Act but also in view

of Section 7(1) of the Provident Funds Act. Both these

provisions confer express powers of making the Scheme

applicable retrospectively.

20. The question however, is whether by making the

Scheme with retrospective operation, the employer could be

saddled with the

489

liability to pay employees' contribution w.e.f. 1st October,

1984 and if not from what other date? The answer to the

question turns upon the implementation of the Scheme and in

particular the giving effect to paras 30 and 32 of the

Scheme. Para 30 provides that the employer shall, in the

first instance, pay both the contributions payable by

himself and also the contribution payable by the employees.

It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to

pay both the contributions payable by himself and also in

respect of the employees directly employed by himself and

also in respect of the employees directly employed by

himself and also in respect of the employees employed by him

or through a contractor. Para 32 confers upon the employer

the right to recover the employees contribution that has

been paid by him under para 30. That could be recovered by

the employer by means of deduction from the wage of the

employees who are liable to pay. First proviso to para

32(1) however, limits that liability in expressly stating

that no such deduction may be made from any wage other than

that which is paid in respect of the period of which the

contribution, is payable. It is obvious from paras 30 and

32 that the employer has to pay the contribution of the

employee's share but he has a right to recover that payment

by deducting the same from the wages due and payable to the

employees. It is significant to note that the deduction is

not from the wages payable for any period, but only from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

wages for the period in respect of which the contribution is

payable and no deduction could be made from any other wages

payable to the employees. In other words, the payment of

employees contribution by the employer with the

corresponding right to deduct the same from the wages of the

employees could be only for the correct period during which

the employer has also to pay his contribution.

In the instant case for the period from 1st October,

1984 up to the date of the impugned Notification the

employer has paid the full wages to the employees since

during that period, there was no scheme applicable to his

establishment. By retrospectively applying the scheme,

could he be asked to pay the employees contribution for the

period antecedent to the impugned notification. We think

not. The Act and the Scheme neither permit any such payment

nor deduction. He cannot be saddled with the liability to

pay the employees' contribution for the retrospective

period, since he has no right to deduct the same from the

future wages payable to the employees.

21. Mr. Vikram Mahajan, learned counsel for the

Central Government submitted that it may be possible for the

employers to make deduction from subsequent wages of the

workmen with the consent in writing of the Inspector as

required under the third proviso to

490

para 32(1) of the Scheme. This submission cannot be

accepted since the third proviso could be taken advantage of

by the employer only where no deduction has been made from

the wages of the employees due to accidental mistake or

clerical error when the scheme is operative. Such

deduction which has not been made by accidental mistake or

clerical error, could be made from the subsequent wages with

the consent in writing of the Inspector concerned. The case

with which we are concerned is not covered by the third

proviso. It is not the case of any body that the employer

could not make deduction from the wages of the employees by

accidental mistake or clerical error. The employer indeed

could not have made the deduction prior to the impugned

notification dated 30th April, 1986 since the Scheme was not

then applicable. The Scheme has been given retrospective

effect w.e.f. 1st October, 1984. The employer therefore,

cannot take the benefit of the third proviso to para 32(1)

for deducting the employees contribution in their wages

payable in future.

22. Reference was also made to the decisions of this

Court in M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Union of India, [1962]

(Suppl) 3 SCR 837 and in M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd., v. Union

of India and Ors., [1965]2 SCR 686 by learned counsel for

the appellants in support of his contentions. It will be

noticed that the Supreme Court in Orissa Cement Ltd. [1962]

(Suppl) 3 SCR 837 was concerned with the validity of certain

Notifications which were struck down as infringing Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The decision, has no

applicability to the facts of the present case. Equally,

the decision, in Lohia Machines Ltd., [1965] 2 SCR 686 has

also no applicability to the facts of the present case.

23. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we

allow the appeals as indicated above by setting aside the

judgment of the High Court. We declare that the appellants

are not liable to pay the employees contribution for the

period from 1st October, 1984 to 30th April, 1986.

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

however, we make no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals partlly allowed.

91

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11