MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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"]

Latest Legal News