Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Supreme Court Upholds Provident Fund Act’s Applicability to Umbrella Manufacturing Establishment: “A Measure of Social Justice”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, with a bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, has dismissed the appeals filed by Thankamma Baby, an umbrella manufacturing establishment, thereby affirming the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

The Court has upheld the interpretation that the appellant’s establishment falls under the category of ‘trading and commercial establishments’ as per the notification dated March 7, 1962, issued by the Central Government. This verdict came as a response to the appellant’s establishment being held accountable under the 1952 Act for assembling, manufacturing, and selling umbrellas. Despite the appellant’s contention that their establishment should not be covered under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act, the apex court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The Supreme Court, in its observation, stated that the case of the appellant was “governed by the said notification issued under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1,” and emphasized the act as a “measure of social justice,” aimed to incorporate “all kinds of employees within its fold.” The Court highlighted the welfare nature of the legislation and the intent of the legislature to provide social security to a wider spectrum of workers.

Justice Oka, in his written judgment, mentioned that “to give effect to the legislature’s intention, the Court will have to adopt a purposive interpretation.” It was this purposive interpretation that led to the conclusion that the establishment engaged in commercial activities is indeed covered under the said Act.

The Court also granted a period of three months for the appellant to settle any monetary liabilities arising from the orders of the respondent confirmed by the High Court, considering the longevity of the legal proceedings which began in 2010.

This judgment sets a precedent for similar establishments engaged in both manufacturing and trading activities, clarifying the scope and extent of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It underscores the Court’s role in interpreting legislation in the spirit of social welfare and justice.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2023

THANKAMMA BABY VS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND  COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA 

   

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/07-Nov-2023-Thankamma-Baby-Vs-Regional-PF-Commr-Kerala.pdf"]

Similar News